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 was sitting in the backyard of a friend’s house the other night, having a drink of wine, and, as usually happens, our conversation turned to politics.

All of us bemoaned what I call “the loss of civility in politics,” which means that folks on the left often hate those on the right and those on the right often hate those on the left. It appears that never the twain shall meet.

The risk is that the tension could and sometimes does develop into something more critical, even open fighting between sides. And “hate” is a word that describes the abyss.

Well, I don’t know that I have a prescription for what ails us as a society when it comes to political differences, but, perhaps a bit ostentatiously, I do have prescriptions for better government, prescriptions that could be supported by the left and the right.

• Prescription #1: All of those in government, especially those in elected or top executive positions should, in response to proposals for more government programs, always ask whether the proposal represents an area where government should be involved. And, those who ask the question always should be prepared to answer no.
• Prescription #2: All of those in government should subject all government programs to what I call “the results test.” Are the programs producing results that warrant continuing expenditures? Some call this the ethic of “return on investment.”

In my long experience in government, I have seen these two prescriptions ignored for much too long.

To repeat what I wrote above: It is logical, given limits on spending, for the basic question to be asked – should government have a role in this perceived problem? Then, if the critically constructed answer is yes, any program should only be started if it is put to the results test.

Let me provide just one example of how this could work.

Back when I represented Youth Villages, formerly ChristieCare, I had the good fortune to work with the executive director there, Lynne Saxton, who had huge credibility in her role.

On behalf of her organization, we decided to advocate for legislation that would direct the State Department of Human Services (DHS) to place renewed emphasis on “strengthening, preserving and reunifying families” to avoid the need for expensive foster care.

A key here was that, in lobbying for what became Senate Bill 964, we insisted on subjecting any new program started by DHS under SB 964 authority to implement the “results test.”

The language said this: “Establish by rule client-focused functional outcome measures for Strengthening, Preserving and Reunifying Families programs. These outcomes measures may be used as a basis for funding programs and negotiating contracts.”

We were told by the Legislative Counsel Office, which drafted the bill, that it was the first time an emphasis on required outcomes had been inserted into law governing DHS.

This was a solid commitment to improved government – and it ended up passing the legislature.

All of us should want this. Is it too much to ask to question whether government should mount new programs and, if the answer is yes, then any new program should be expected to rely on a “results test?”

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.

Okay, let me dispense with this first. It is nothing if not presumptuous for me, from Salem, Oregon, to comment on international relations under one of the most mercurial, unpredictable leaders of all time – Donald Trump.

I saw a word this morning that reminded me of Trump – bloviated. It means “to talk aimlessly and boastingly.”

Now, I might say that at least the word “boastingly” describes Trump to a T. Is he aimless?

No one knows…yet.

An analytical piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning drove all of this home to me as reporters reflected on the Trump international relations style on the eve of his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore.

As Trump flew to Singapore, he stunned allies by refusing to sign a communique at the end of a Group of Seven summit meeting in Canada and castigating the summit host, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for criticizing U.S. trade policy.

Including that recent development, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) listed six methods to describe Trump’s foreign policy approach (and the amplification in each case also is based on WSJ reporting).

Method 1: “I Alone Can Fix It

Trump made this declaration at the 2016 Republican Natonal Convention. Twenty-two months later, on May 8, 2018, he said alone at a small wooden desk in the White House basement. As television cameras zoomed in, only a few staffers from his innermost circle watched from afar in the Diplomatic Room as he dramatically signed a stack of documents withdrawing America from the seven-nation deal aimed at constraining Iran’s nuclear program.

It was a display of showmanship the president himself devised, employing stagecraft learned on reality TV, administration officials said. After two years opposing the deal, he wanted the world to see him putting pen to paper.

Method 2: Soften Up the Opposition and Keep it Off Balance

Early in the administration, even top advisers inside the White House were concerned the president was being too confrontational with North Korea, said current and former administration officials. The speech prepared for Trump to deliver to the United Nations in September sought to isolate Kim Jong Un. The president departed from the draft and turned it personal, calling Kim “rocket man” on a “suicide mission.”

Method 3: Set Deadlines—Real or Imagined—to Create Pressure

No one loves negotiating against deadlines more than Trump, who proudly uses them as weapons. “He never gives an order without a deadline,” an administration official said.

Method 4: Don’t Calm the Waters—Roil Them

Last year, Trump faced a deadline that collided with a campaign promise, his vow to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as stipulated in a 1995 law.

The law allowed presidents to sign a waiver and postpone the move six months at a time, something every previous president did routinely. In June 2017, Trump deferred to his national-security team, said people familiar with the discussions, signing a waiver as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, mapped out a Middle East peace plan.

Six months later, Trump met again with the team. This time, he was intent on keeping his campaign promise, even though most of his advisers, including Kushner, continued to raise concerns about the decision, these people said.

Trump asked Kushner to assess what impact the embassy move would have on his diplomatic efforts, said one of the people. Kushner “told the president it would add uncertainty to the peace process and create short-term disruption,” the person said, but “thought it would be net beneficial over the long-term.”

Method 5: Make it Personal

Trump sees his personality as key to securing foreign agreements. It is a method born of a career in real estate, current and former administration officials said, where personal chemistry can hold outsize importance.

When Chinese President XI Jinping visited Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in April 2017, the president shattered the careful choreography—something that took weeks of international negotiations—surprising the Chinese by immediately seeking a one-on-one meeting with Xi.

Method 6: Use “Maximum Pressure” and Be Prepared to Walk Away

Trump embraced a “maximum pressure campaign” on North Korea. Other foreign leaders haven’t been spared either.

A signature Trump tactic is to respond to every attack with a stronger counterstrike. When Beijing threatened to match his tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods, he threatened to put tariffs on $100 billion.

CONCLUSION: With all due respect to the Wall Street Journal – and I mean that in the most positive sense possible – this list of Trump’s international relations approach strikes me as exactly on target, at least in the sense of description.

Will his seat of the pants, bloviated approach work? Only time will tell.

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.

What does the word “progressive” mean?

I ask because the word often is used in a positive way to describe proposals from Democrats who usually believe that more government represents progress. In fact, the reverse may be true. More government is not always positive, so I contend the word progressive should not be used to describe such proposals.

Here are the dictionary definitions of the adjective:

• Favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters – such as a progressive mayor.
• Making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods – such as a progressive community.
• Characterized by such progress or by continuous improvement.

Consider this story, which recently appeared in The Nation:

“The list of victories thus far on this year’s long calendar of contests—mayoral, City Council, state legislative, and even statewide—is striking. Many of them are unprecedented, and most are linked by a growing recognition on the part of national progressive groups and local activists that the greatest resistance not just to Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan but to right-wing governors could well come from the cities and states where the day-to-day work of governing is done.”

Note use of the word progressive. It has the effect of conveying a positive impression of movement forward, even though the specific proposals by those running for local election may not be positive.

Turns out that a long-time Texas Republican in Congress, Lamar Smith, has been on a quiet mission for years to flag what he sees as examples of bias in news reporting. One of his examples is use of the term “progressive” when a more accurate modifier, he says, might be “liberal.”

I agree. I say the judgment about the positive or negative character of government proposals should be left up to individuals, not conveyed by use of a word that comes across as positive.

[Footnote: I could have included this blog as a part of the Department of Pet Peeves, which I manage. I didn’t, preferring to give the word “progressive” singular standing. But its over-use stands as a pet peeve.]

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.

The news was earth-shaking for some.

Don’t drink water supplied by the City of Salem’s system. At least don’t let your young children or pets do so. Some older adults, as well. The water could be contaminated.

The first time around, the news emerged in an over-the-top way as the state government Office of Emergency Management (OEM) produced an alert that caught most readers or hearers off-guard as the words made it sound like something far worse was in store.

The OEM apologized for not making the alert very specific about the problem – problems with the city’s water system.

But, that reality aside, all of us can learn something from this episode, which, by the way, is continuing as OEM issued another alert saying that, after a few days of relatively clean water, the supply was contaminated again.

The best advice: Be prepared! It was advice we took to heart several months ago in response to concern about a major natural disaster, such as an earthquake, that could leave us and neighbors in South Salem in jeopardy, as well as cut off from first-responder aid. We were advised to make preparations, such as, for instance, having a supply of water on hand in case we couldn’t be reached for some time in the face of a disaster.

So, we did.

One of our neighbors ridiculed our efforts, saying in jest I knew, that, if there was a natural disaster, he/she would just come to our supply of food and water and take what he/she needed.

All kidding aside, I said we would have enough supplies to help neighbors in need.

In response to the initial water contamination, Oregon Governor Kate Brown declared a state of emergency for portions of Marion and Polk counties, thus opening the door for national guard troops to truck in fresh water for residents grappling with the discovery of low-level toxins in tap water.

Under state law, her alert also allowed the state attorney general to investigate allegations of price gouging and, if true, to prosecute the offenders.  In the face of a natural disaster, retailers are limited to imposing a 15 per cent price increase for disaster-related supplies.

My wife went shopping the other day after the first emergency alert and found many people stocking up on supplies of water. Apparently, they didn’t have some already at home as we did.  Plus, it should be added that we are served by a separate water system, one based on wells, so Salem’s water problem doesn’t affect us.

At Costco, she also found that the company had not increased the cost of water, which is good news for Costco’s commitment to the community.

Beyond Costco and other smart retailers, another piece of good news was that the City of Keizer, which gets its water from wells, stepped up to provide supplies for use by Salem residents.

Back to the lessons learned.

This episode, a relatively minor one by most standards, should be used by residents to illustrate the value of stocking up on supplies, including water, if some other, more serious natural disaster occurs.

The director of OEM, Andrew Phelps, after he had apologized for his office’s initial strange alert, said the runs on bottled water illustrate how ill-prepared Oregonians are for any kind of emergency. Residents are advised to have a 14-day stock of potable water at all times.

“As best you can, prepare for whatever bad day lies ahead,” Phelps said.

Good advice!

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 the departments I run with a free hand to do what I want to do, which means that, like Trump, I am a dictator. Of course, my dictatorship covers far smaller turf than Trump who, as a huge egotist, believes he is always the most important person in the U.S., if not the world.

So, he says he is above the law, even willing to consider pardoning himself if he is charged with any crime.

Oh well! That is the pivot for another blog at a later time.

Meanwhile, here are more quotes worth remembering.

From Joe Scarborough in the Washington Post:  “Even after his calling for a Muslim ban in 2015, professing ignorance of former Ku Kluz Klan leader David Duke in 2016, defending white supremacists in 2017, and calling out Hispanic ‘breeding’ in April, Trump still enjoys steadfast support among most Capitol Hill Republicans.

“…For starters, they can point to Trump’s conservative judicial nominees beyond Neil Gorsuch as cause for celebration. But their talking points can also include massive tax cuts, a bigger military budget, regulatory reform and the gutting of the Environmental Protection Agency, gutting the Paris climate accords, scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal, undermining Obamacare, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, attacking federal employee unions, and promoting extreme immigration policies. Add to that the mocking of political correctness and identity politics, and you have a platform sure to inspire the activists who drive today’s Republican Party.”

Comment: Republicans on Capital Hill have been loathe to go against Trump, but the risk is that, in supporting Trump, they appear to support all of his over-the-top rhetoric. But, as Scarborough explains above, Trump has managed – who knows how – to create a decent conservative policy agenda.

From Washington Post White House reporters and editors:  “The result: A White House solar system in which the president functions as the sun and his aides and advisers circle around him, but with no clear lines of orbit. Rudy Giuliani, for instance, weighed in during a recent interview with The Washington Post on a topic totally outside his Russia-investigation purview: Iran.”

Comment: Again, everything revolves around Trump, at least in his own mind.

I hate to cite him because of his typical left wing dogma, but this from E. J. Dionne in the Washington Post:  “By now, we know that President Trump is a lying demagogue. Because this is not said often enough, he has been allowed to routinize lying and enshrine the vilest forms of divisiveness as a normal part of our politics.  Lies do not deserve deference just because a president tells them.”

Comment: Lying, in the Trump era, has become an art form – and that risks trust in government and many other institutions (see another of my recent blogs).

From former CIA Director John Brennan in the Washington Post:  “The esteem with which I held the presidency was dealt a serious blow when Donald Trump took office. Almost immediately, I began to see a startling aberration from the remarkable, though human, presidents I had served. Mr. Trump’s lifelong preoccupation with aggrandizing himself seemed to intensify in office, and he quickly leveraged his 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address and his Twitter handle to burnish his brand and misrepresent reality.

“Presidents throughout the years have differed in their approaches to policy, based on political platforms, ideologies and individual beliefs. Trump, however, has shown highly abnormal behavior by lying routinely to the American people without compunction, intentionally fueling divisions in our country and actively working to degrade the imperfect but critical institutions that serve us.

“Although appalling, those actions shouldn’t be surprising. As was the case throughout his business and entertainment careers, Trump charts his every move according to a calculus of how it will personally help or hurt him. His strategy is to undercut real, potential and perceived opponents; his focus is to win at all costs, irrespective of truth, ethics, decency and — many would argue — the law. His disparagement of institutions is designed to short-circuit legitimate law enforcement investigations, intelligence assessments and media challenges that threaten his interests. His fear of the special counsel’s work is especially palpable, as is his growing interest in destroying its mandate.”

Comment: Brennan, once a relatively private figure as director of the CIA, is right-on with his criticisms of Trump.

From the Washington Post story about Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s decision to step down as CEO and chairman of the Board, raising speculation that he may seek public office, perhaps the presidency: “It’s not about Starbucks, it’s about the country. What kind of country do we want to live in? For me the answer is very simple. The promise of America will not be achieved if it is only available to those that have the right color of skin or have the right Zip code. We must provide opportunity and aspiration to every single person who is American, and we must see that through the lens of humanity. And this exercise is the beginning of that for Starbucks.”

“Schultz — in letters to employees and remarks at annual shareholder meetings — has for years been honing his own brand of lofty rhetoric that has often sounded hints of a campaign-style stump speech. Speaking before the election in 2016 that would vault Trump into the presidency, Schultz said, ‘I’ve struggled for weeks to find the right words to express the pain I feel about where America is headed and the cloud hanging over the American people. There are moments when I’ve had a hard time recognizing who we are and who we are becoming. We are facing a test not only of our character, but of our morality as a people.’”

Comment: If Schultz continues comments like this and decides to run for president — the Washington Post today says interest in Schultz may wane quickly — I would consider voting for him.

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.

Trust is an important commodity in every day life. And, not just a commodity, but a critical factor in maintaining a sense of equilibrium.

But America’s trust in its leaders and institutions has been falling for four decades. Trust in the federal government has never been lower. In 1958, Pew Research found that 73 per cent trusted government to do what is right “always” or “most of the time.” That sounds healthy.

As of 2017, that number was down to 18 per cent. Not healthy.

In a column by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal the other day, she posited: “Other institutions have suffered, too—the church, the press, the professions. That’s disturbing because those institutions often bolster our national life in highly personal ways. When government or law turns bad, they provide a place, a platform from which to stand, to make a case, to correct.”

Noonan, ever an optimist, believes there are things we can do individually to help America be more at peace with itself.

“First,” she says, “realize this isn’t merely a problem, but a crisis. When you say you believe in and trust democratic institutions, you are saying you believe in and trust democracy itself. When you don’t, you don’t. When a nation tells pollsters it’s unable to trust its constituent parts, it’s telling pollsters it doesn’t trust itself.”

Noonan says and I agree that there is a difference between skepticism and cynicism. Skepticism is constructive. Cynicism is the opposite, childish.

“Skepticism,” Noonan adds, “involves an intellectual exercise: You look at the grand surface knowing it may not reflect the inner reality. It implies action: If it doesn’t, try to make it better. Cynicism is a dodge: Everything’s crud, you’d be a fool to try and make it better, it’s all irredeemable and unchangeable.”

Be skeptical of our institutions, not cynical toward them.

President Trump cannot help in this effort. Increasing public trust is not his declared mission, and what it would take is not in his toolbox. He tends in his statements to undermine trust: His own government is embarked on a deep-state witch-hunt conspiracy, his agencies are incompetent, the press is fake-news liars.

So, forget Trump if that is possible. Practice skepticism.  Forego cynicism.

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.

Where were you in 1968?

Recalling that tempestuous year is a bit like remembering where you were in 1963 when John F. Kennedy was assassinated or in 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first men to walk on the moon.

There was not just one event in 1968. They were many, as this blog details below.

For my part, I was in college at Seattle Pacific College (now Seattle Pacific University), at about the middle point of my four years there. With the Vietnam War in full swing, I was concerned about my future – or, frankly, whether I would have one.

The year 1968 served as the pivot for a recent column by Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The headline for his piece termed “1968 as the year that politics collapsed.”

It went on to say that 1968 also was the year that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Donald Trump graduated from college.

The year also was important enough that the Smithsonian Magazine devoted its entire January-February 2018 edition to a retrospective on 1968 — and I am still reading the magazine to recall even more events.

Meanwhile, here’s more from Henninger:

“The modern era of American politics—defined by polarization and nonstop intensity—began with the cataclysmic events of 1968, now celebrating, if that’s the right word, its 50th anniversary.

“Everyone says the pace of events in the Trump presidency is overwhelming. Compared with 1968, the past year has been a walk in the park.

“It is impossible to understand the relevance of that year (1968) without a timeline.

“Jan. 23: The USS Pueblo and its 82 survivors are captured and taken hostage by North Korea. On Jan. 30, North Vietnam launches the notorious Tet Offensive, including an invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. March 12, Minnesota’s Democratic Sen. Eugene McCarthy comes within a few hundred votes in the New Hampshire primary of upsetting President Lyndon B. Johnson. Within three weeks, Johnson announces he will not seek his party’s presidential nomination.

“Four days later, Martin Luther King Jr. is assassinated in Memphis. Urban riots break out across the U.S. April 23: Students occupy offices at Columbia University until police storm the building a week later. June 3: Andy Warhol is shot in New York by Valerie Solanas, author of the SCUM Manifesto, or “Society for Cutting Up Men.”

“Then, on June 5, while running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Robert F. Kennedy is assassinated at a Los Angeles hotel.

“August 8: Republicans nominate Richard Nixon. Two weeks later, the Soviet Union invades Czechoslovakia.

“In late summer during the Democratic Convention in Chicago, police fight a pitched battle with antiwar protesters in Grant Park. In October, at the Summer Olympics in Mexico City, Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos raise gloved fists as a black-power salute during a medal ceremony.

“November 5: Nixon defeats Hubert Humphrey and a third-party populist, former and future Alabama Governor George Wallace, who in the spirit of the times told a group of antiwar protesters: ‘I was killing fascists when you punks were in diapers.’”

Historians have tried to decipher the volcanic eruptions in 1968.  For some, it was the emerging political power of televised images; Vietnam was called “the living-room war.” That was true for me as I watched my generation serve on a battlefield while many at home demonstrated against their service, even reviling them as the likely one returned from the war.

For his part, Henninger posits that 1968 “marked the start of political polarization. Contrary to current myth, the civil-rights legislation of a few years before was bi-partisan. With the Vietnam War, unity began to unravel.”

The late 1960s, he says, saw the beginning of left-liberal moral triumphalism. The opposition was no longer just wrong. It was morally suspect. For a new generation of Democrats, which increasingly included the so-called “politically neutral press,” the Vietnam War was opposed as, simply, “a bright shining lie.”

Some 10 years later, inevitably, Henninger adds, the religious right emerged.

So, here we are today, fractured by politics and technology into myriad cultural subsets of separations that began in 1968.

For me, two points are true here.

One – we have come a long way since 1968, at least in terms of the passage of time. Things are different today as we talk to each other by mobile device no matter where we are, as we contend with a pervasive social media that confronts us at every turn, as we look at a president who defies normal norms for the most important political position in the country, if not the world, and as we limit trust in almost any institution, including those that have thrown away any reason or building trust.

Two – as a people, we are even more divided today than back in 1968. Our political views illustrate that division every day and, more and more certain of those who represent us in government work to capitalize on that division.

My fond wish today, 50 years after the grueling year of 1968, is that we would find a way to honor humanity and work together for the common good.

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.

Donald Trump fancies himself as a master of the art of the deal.

Given recent events, that may just be in his mind.

This is the way Jackson Diehl, deputy editor of the Washington Post editorial page, describes this issue in a summary of the last weeks of Trumpism:

“Trump is now saying the Korea summit may go ahead, even though there is no sign that Kim has changed his position on denuclearization. Still, the past month has taught all sides a lesson about Trump, if they didn’t know it already: He’s not up to serious negotiation. He can’t be expected to seriously weigh costs and benefits, or make complex trade-offs. He’s good at bluster, hype and showy gestures, but little else. In short, he may be the worst presidential deal-maker in modern history.”

If you stop and think about it over the past year-plus of the Trump presidency, he loves to be lauded and complimented. If that happens, he relishes the attention, even from very questionable world leaders like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong un.

But, if Trump is criticized, all hell breaks loose, as does his Twitter account.

Consider this summary about Trump from Senator John McCain, who has recently written a book about his political life as he is nearing the end due to brain cancer:

“The appearance of toughness or a reality show facsimile of toughness seems to matter more than any of our values. Flattery secures his friendship, criticism his enmity.”

A great line, but not just a line – an indictment of a president who is not up the job of holding the top political position in the nation, if not the world: “Flattery secures his friendship, criticism his enmity.”

Trump appears to be still looking for plaudits, even as he conducts himself with no apparent interest in coming across as even-handed and competent, not to mention one who can cut a good deal.

Now, there will be those who suggest that Trump’s approach to deal-making – offering something on one hand, then taking it away with impunity with the other hand – constitutes smart strategy. But, to quote one congressional leader, it becomes almost impossible to deal with jello – comparing Trump to something that doesn’t stay solid.

Trump’s deal-making approach is that he wants Americans to think that any deal revolves around his own image of himself and he always is the only one who matters. We’ll see how all this plays in North Korea – if, after all the pushing and shoving, a summit actually occurs.

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 editorial from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) caught my attention last week as it argues against a certain political identity – a liberal one – that impedes serving “little children.”

The editorial asks, “What’s more important—finding a foster home for needy children, or identity politics? The answer from the political left is exacerbating a crisis in Philadelphia that is leaving hundreds of children to languish in group homes.”

Catholic Social Services has worked in Philadelphia for decades and oversees about 100 foster homes. But, two months ago, the city abruptly halted referrals to the group because the Catholic charity holds Catholic beliefs about same-sex marriage. Last week, several foster parents represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty sued in federal court to resume the group’s foster-care placements.

The WSJ reports:

“Catholic Social Services works with children regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. But, on Catholic religious grounds, the charity won’t certify same-sex or unmarried couples as foster parents, instead referring them to another state-approved organization. More than two dozen alternative agencies exist, and Catholic Social Services says no gay couples have even sought its help for certification, much less filed a complaint after being turned away.

“Philadelphia has nonetheless denounced Catholic Social Services as discriminatory and launched an investigation into its practices. Unless the group agrees to provide written certifications for same-sex foster parents, the city will terminate its contract in June.

“The Becket Fund suit argues that this is a breach of contract with Catholic Social Services. It also claims that Philadelphia is violating the group’s right to religious liberty by penalizing it specifically for Catholic beliefs, and that the city is violating the First Amendment by compelling speech that Catholic Social Services opposes.”

Beyond the law, Philadelphia’s coercion hurts the city’s most vulnerable children and the families who want to care for them. One of the plaintiffs in this case is Cecelia Paul, who has opened her home to more than 130 children over the past 46 years. Philadelphia honored her as one of its foster parents of the year in 2015. But because Mrs. Paul is certified through Catholic Social Services, her home has been vacant since April.

All of this recalls to mind the time I worked as a lobbyist for organizations imbued by solid moral and ethical connections to the Catholic Church. Two of them were Providence Health & Services, a major provider of health care services around the state, and Catholic Community Services of the Marion, Polk and Yamhill, which provides services to low-income residences, especially children, in those three counties.

There were repeated threats at the Capitol in Salem to stop services by those organizations because of their “links to religion.” Vocal voices from the left – perhaps that phrase is redundant because such voices always appear to be loud and grating — thought such linkages were, somehow, inappropriate. Better to adopt dogma from the left than serve children and families?

Nothing could be farther from the truth. In my experience, links to the Catholic Church provide a solid ethical and moral base for serving the poor and disadvantaged. The issue is not what you, the server, can get for doing good. It is what you can do to express God’s love for “his children.”

Back to the issues in Philadelphia.

“As the lawsuit notes, the real discrimination here is religious. Philadelphia is penalizing Catholic Social Services because its beliefs about marriage don’t mesh with so-called progressive cultural values.

“To protect the city’s conscience, Philadelphia demands that Catholics violate their own. Who is really intolerant here?”

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.

In my role as a lobbyist, I worked on occasion with a business owner from Salem who thought the phrase “return on investment” should apply to every government program. And he was not hesitant to use the axiom in any of his conversations with legislators in Oregon.

Think about it for a minute and it may strike you, as it does me, as a very good criterion for all government programs. Still, the test of getting results rarely is used.

Consider this most recent example pointed out by Oregonian editorial writers about a City of Portland program – providing money to the Regional Arts and Culture Council, which issues grants to arts organizations in the Portland area.

Forget a basic question – should spending money on arts be a role for government – and consider this criticism lofted by the Oregonian.

“An audit, requested by Commissioner Nick Fish and Mayor Ted Wheeler last year, reveals how the city and arts council have operated for 20 years with little thought of measuring impact, meeting objectives or showing the public what their millions of dollars a year are buying.”

“…The City of Portland never articulated any clear goals of what it wanted to achieve with regard to arts and culture. The arts council had no strategic plan to guide its actions. Contract provisions were vague, making it difficult to gauge progress. And the city provided almost no oversight of the nonprofit’s spending, despite giving the arts council more than $20 million in General Fund money since 2012, according to city budget office figures. That’s money that could have gone to public safety, homelessness or many other core needs and doesn’t even include any of the arts tax revenue passed on to the arts council since 2013.”

What has happened in Portland occurs elsewhere, as well, including in relation to far larger state government programs.

Return on investment is rarely used as a tool to measure success – or failure.

The tendency is that, once in place, a government programs stays in place no matter what.

I have seen failure to pay attention for far too long. Taxpayers deserve better.

For me, RESULTS matter. Do government programs produce the results they were created to produce?

If so, good.

If not, do away with them and take either of two actions: Save the money or invest it in new programs that are subjected to a “return on investment” test.