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.

Another indication that I sometimes have too much time on my hands is that I think about this question: What would I have wanted to be if not a lobbyist?

First, it doesn’t make much sense to look back at your life and wonder what if. Second, I enjoyed my years as a lobbyist, in part because I had a great list of clients. I was never embarrassed about representing them. Well, in truth, there were a couple that, upon reflection, I would have turned down, but, in the main, nearly all of them were reputable, honest participants in Oregon’s public policy process.

But, back to the question.

Here is my list of other pursuits for me.

1. Be a TV golf commentator

Listening to those currently on the tube leads me to believe that I could do as well as most of them do.

Consider typical phrases. “He or she has a lot of work left to do.” “If he or she would have hit it harder, it would have gone farther.”

Or, consider the phrase that has given commentator Gary Koch almost endless praise. In talking about a putt from golfer Tiger Woods on the tough 17^th green at Sawgrass in Florida, Koch said, “Better than most.”

Well, I guess not a bad turn of phrase in the moment, but, if you look at it for long enough, you are not sure what it means.

Or, finally on the heels of Masters’ tournament week, the phrase uttered by golf TV host Jim Nantz still echoes through the magnolias at Augusta – “a tradition unlike any other.”

2. Be a groundskeeper at Augusta National Golf Course

With Masters’ week in the rear-view mirror, my thoughts continue to go to the iconic course in Augusta, Georgia.

I have been there once for the Masters’ tournament (see my past blog on Masters’ memories), and I would gladly go again to the hallowed grounds in the south.

On one hand, as I reflect on the Masters’, I would be happy to play in the tournament – or at least on the course during non-tournament time. But, since that won’t happen, I have another vocational goal. It is to be a groundskeeper on the course.

That won’t happen either.

3. Be the person at the Masters’ who announces the names of players on the tee

This occurs with only a few words. “Fore, please. (name) now driving.”

I often function as a starter for Oregon Golf Association events, so it is easy to imagine myself at the Masters’, though getting to that position would be a substantial leap.

Still, if I were to make it, standing on the 1^st tee at Augusta Natiional would be a huge thrill.

4. Be a rules official for the United States Golf Association

Writing about goals that won’t occur, I cite this as another aspiration.

I have taken the golf rules test, after a three-day seminar, and it – the test – is incredibly difficult.

The rules are complex, but the problem with the test is that it is does not provide a solid assessment of your knowledge of golf rules. Questions are written in such a way as to be confusing on their face, which makes the rules even more opaque than they are.

Still, if I could master the rules test, I could function as, at least, a local rules official for tournaments run in the state and the region by the Oregon Golf Association, a very competent local association where I currently serve as a volunteer.

If optional jobs for me appear to revolve around golf, that is because they do. Call it my small mind.

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.

For Oregon business interests, last week began with a major development when the Board of Directors of the nascent Oregon Business & Industry (OBI) organization summarily fired its still-new CEO.

Whether business interests can recover from the controversy is a story yet to be told.

For OBI, the issues were several-fold. The new CEO, former legislator Mark Johnson, had apparently used incendiary language to describe a Latino member of the Oregon Legislature. He also had no real experience running a major, new organization feeling its way toward some kind of business consensus on major public policy issues facing the state.

In other words, his original hire was a mistake.

Then, to compound matters, Johnson tried to lead OBI while maintaining his residence in Hood River. Plus, he tried to install his former legislative assistant as the COO of the new organization, though she had moved to Pennsylvania and both she and Johnson presumed she could do the operating officer job from the East Coast.

If you would have added up these failures or stupidities, whichever is the case, you would have concluded that Johnson had to go. He did.

OBI emerged last year after an old-line business organization, Associated Oregon Industries, joined with a progressive upstart, Oregon Business Association.

Business and political leaders had been seeking a merger for years, hoping to forge a proactive, well-funded and, most importantly, unified political force in Salem. The combined organization has 1,700 members and an annual budget around $2.2 million.

OBI has the potential to be a powerful voice in Salem, a prospective counterweight to labor groups that often hold sway with the state’s Democrat majority. That was the prospect raised in 2016 when the business community crushed a union-backed initiative, Measure 97, that would have raised corporate taxes by $3 billion.

In practice, however, the merger proved difficult. The trade group lost several top staffers after Johnson took over, and member businesses split over such issues as the state’s response to climate change.

To recover lost ground, OBI tapped long-time Oregon operative Ginny Lang to serve as interim CEO while the organization searches for a permanent leader.

In an Oregonian newspaper interview, Lang, a retired telecommunications executive, said “Oregon’s largest business group needs to move quickly if it’s to recover from a difficult merger and the sudden firing of the first CEO.”

Good point.

“Everything they’re doing (the new Board) is new because they’ve created a different organization and a different way of doing things and they’re going to have to build a culture around it.”

Divisions remain, Lang concedes, between rural and urban businesses, and between liberal executives and conservative industrialists, a reality that is neither bad nor surprising.

“The idea that this the business community in Oregon that thinks and speaks and acts in the same way just makes me chuckle a little bit,” Lang said.

Part of the process of forming a new organization, she added, involves sorting through differences to find common ground and policies a broad group of members can support around education funding, taxes and the environment.

“It’s important for businesses to figure out ways to talk among themselves and disagree among themselves, then put forward options that everyone is willing to live with.”

With sage comments such as those, it will not be surprising if Lang succeeds in her interim role. Her long experience in negotiating the shoals of public policy in Oregon provides a solid foundation.

To be sure, Lang faces major internal issues. The business association needs a long-term CEO, a chief operating officer, a political director, a membership director and perhaps a communications chief.

Lang also says she will continue the push to make OBI a full partner with the Oregon Business Council and the Portland Business Alliance in developing the business community’s annual policy playbook, the Oregon Business Plan, which lays out a consensus vision on a variety of issues, from education and tax policy to pension reform and the environment.

OBI’s unique role in that partnership, she said, will be converting policy ideas into pieces of legislation and helping push them through the 2019 process, “so it’s not just an academic exercise.”

Kudos to Lang for her first days on the job.

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 found time to watch a bit of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s appearance before Congressional committees last week.

Without getting into the detail of how to regulate social media companies such as Facebook – a hugely complicated issue, one for which I am not suited — a fact struck me as I watched Zuckerberg in the hot seat for two days.

It was this: Many Members of Congress asked very long questions, seemingly to get themselves on TV, then gave Zuckerberg only scant time to answer. In fact, as he started to answer, he was often interrupted by a member who obviously wanted more air time and didn’t want Zuckerberg to provide any answer with context.

It struck me as a farce, perhaps indicative of how Congressional committees often work, but still a farce.

The polite approach would have been to ask Zuckerberg a question, even a hard one, then give him time to respond.

As I reflected on Zuckerberg’s plight last week, I also looked back on my more than 25 years as a lobbyist in Oregon. I often testified before legislative committees and, while there was sometimes a tendency for legislators to interrupt, I was able to ask the chair to give me time to respond. Almost invariably, the chair said yes.

Did I have something important to say? Perhaps. But the approach was to give me time to answer and that was – and is – a far better fate than what Zuckerberg had to contend with last week.

This was Zuckerberg’s maiden voyage through the shoals of Congressional testimony. Here’s hoping that the next time – if there is a next time – he will be treated fairly. That’s the least we should expect with what is stake – finding the proper balance between free speech and privacy.

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 confession is even appropriate in this case, let me confess this:  I like Paul Ryan.

• I liked him when he was “just” a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
• I liked him when he was asked to run for vice president on a Republican ticket with Mitt Romney.
• I liked him when, under pressure after the resignation of John Boehner, he agreed to take over as Speaker of the House.
• I liked how he tried the run the gauntlet of being Speaker in a House where many members didn’t want to be led anywhere.
• I like him now as he heads toward retirement at the young age of 48, saying he will never run for public office again.

I don’t blame him.

Who would want to try to herd cats as Speaker of the House, then contend with Donald Trump as president?

Not me.

Ryan is a person of ideas and it appears that he could not continue serving in the powder-keg of Congress where policy goals often get short shrift and almost always lead to contention, not resolution

Here’s the way the Wall Street Journal put it in its lead editorial:

“Paul Ryan’s decision not to run for re-election for Congress is a blow to Republicans, and his departure at age 48 will leave a particular void in the GOP’s growth and reform wing. But the lesson of his 20 years in Congress is that the Members who matter are those who change the public debate about policies of consequence.

“Mr. Ryan deserves credit for taking the job of Speaker that no one else wanted after John Boehner resigned in 2015. He knew the legislative grinder was likely to end his chances of becoming President, but he did it anyway. His policy chops and listening skills helped rally the fractious GOP House into a governing majority rather than merely an opposition to Barack Obama. They developed the “Better Way” reform platform in 2016, and in this Congress they’ve passed most of it through the House and much into law.

“The talk-show right won’t admit this (Ryan’s accomplishments) because Mr. Ryan understands the occasional need to compromise and hasn’t embraced extreme anti-immigration positions. They have railed against Mr. Ryan as a totem of ‘the establishment,’ which was always more epithet than argument. Mr. Ryan knows that the point of politics is to win power to pass your agenda, not remain in feckless opposition to the supposedly un-reformable entitlement state.”

Or, this from Wall Street Journal columnist Karl Rove:

“Mr. Ryan will leave Congress with the respect of virtually every member of his caucus, to say nothing of Democrats who can’t help but like him despite their policy differences. No one else could have matched his performance at keeping House Republicans moving in a constructive direction over the last three years. That he did so while also deftly managing relations with this White House—not known for its maturity or predictability—is all the more impressive.

“Mr. Ryan’s departure from the House will be a loss for the country, too. Like his mentor, Jack Kemp, Mr. Ryan is optimistic, generous in spirit, committed to outreach, and animated by ideas. He is willing to work across party lines, as in the 2013 budget deal. And throughout his public life, he has shown integrity, civility and decency—qualities much too rare in today’s coarse and ugly political culture.”

Another columnist I read said “the departing speaker’s central insight is that serious governments have to choose. His years long effort to reform America’s entitlements was really an attempt to guide a new debate about the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of government spending. The shame of the Ryan years—and it’s our shame as voters, not his—is that too few Republicans, let alone citizens at large, were prepared to engage that discussion seriously.

“The dangerous alternative into which those on the right too often fall is to obsess solely over the fiscal ‘how much.’ The mark of a party that’s truly ready to lead will not be the passage of a gimmicky and futile balanced-budget requirement. It will be a political commitment to the entitlement reforms without which a balanced budget will never be possible.

“The deeper failure is one of basic governance. Choosing austerity means refusing to choose in any meaningful way.”

This is one of the reasons Ryan’s legacy is positive in my mind. He knew that developing a government budget is more than just adding and subtracting numbers. It is making conscious policy decisions. For Ryan, it was making real decisions on entitlements so government dollars could be allocated in specific, intentional ways – including to entitlements, as well as to priorities such as public safety.

One of my friends yesterday said Ryan deserves criticism for not standing up more strongly to Trump. Well, no matter what Ryan did or did not do, it wouldn’t matter to the mad-hatter who sits in the Oval Office.

What Congress needs is more smart minds like Ryan’s who will propose policies and challenge the conventional wisdom today that government cannot operate effectively.

So, kudos to him as he leaves government and moves on with his 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.

If you read one of my recent blogs, I reflected on memories of the 2015 Masters’ tournament in Augusta, Georgia, when I had the privilege – perhaps a once-in-lifetime privilege – to attend the tournament with my daughter and her husband.

We had two days at the tournament which is my favorite all year.

Well, this year, without tickets, my wife and I traveled to my daughter’s home in Woodinville, Washington, where, with my daughter and family, we watched almost all the tournament on TV.

What’s more, my daughter brought out her Masters’ tournament chairs and set them up in the living room where we could both see them and sit in them. Just like being at Augusta National – or almost.

So, another great Masters’ memory!

We have purposed to spend every Masters’ with my daughter and family, even as she continues to participate in the lottery for Masters’ tickets, hoping to be able to attend again.

Perhaps we’ll get that chance, but even if we don’t, Masters’ memories will live on.

Plus, one piece good news about being at home and not at Augusta National: There is no need to have a pimento sandwich!

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 often wish I had a job suggesting names for cars, hotels and other businesses.

Who has that job anyway?

Who suggested that it would be a good idea for the car company, Mercedes Benz, to come out this year with a car called AMG?

Who decides which letters – or numbers – go well enough together to earn the right to be used? Who advised that some Acura cars should go by the initials, TSX?

Or, as I was in North Seattle over the weekend, who decided that Microsoft would be a good name for a company that has grown, in only a few short years, to be an international behemoth? Or, Apple, with a picture with a bite out of an apple, for a mark?

Or, Facebook even as we anticipate another appearance before a Congressional committee by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Without much previous experience, most observers thought Zuckerberg survived his first day yesterday with mostly flying colors, including in the performance of his company’s stock.

But, back to the name issue – Facebook works well, in part because a made-up name, Facebook, existed long enough and is popular enough to gain huge brand awareness.

I answer again, who knows how company or brand names are decided?

All of this leads me to the story about how the company I co-founded more than 25 years ago, with two partners, got its name. There was no outside research involved; we just thought about the question ourselves.

One of the partners thought a good name for our lobbying and public relations company would be “talisman.”

Here is the dictionary definition of a term that, frankly, is not used much in normal human discourse:

“Anything whose presence exercises a remarkable or powerful influence on human feelings or actions.”

Well, I guess that definition would have worked for a company like ours. But I also thought the word conjured up some kind of magic to do our work, which could not have been farther from the on-the-ground truth.

Our role was not “to exercise remarkable or powerful influence on human feelings or actions,” in much the same way as a magician would do. Rather, it was to work hard to represent our clients and to help them put their best foot forward.

So, with “talisman” in the rear-view mirror, at least my thoughts turned to other options.

For me, there were several:

• Pinnacle, a name that would signal our commitment to reach the top of our business for the benefit of our clients.
• Promontory, another word that would signal the same aspiration.
• Summit,
• On Target, a name that would signal our commitment to work in ways that would be “on target” with the desires and wishes of our clients.
• Or, my favorite, Cornerstone, a name that would signal that our efforts would provide a basis – the foundation cornerstone, if you will – for our clients to move forward.

What did we choose?

None of the above.

Eventually, we landed on using our own partner last names – Conkling, Fiskum & McCormick. All of us had produced, in years before our start in 1990, track records of solid performance in previous jobs.

Perhaps a bit presumptuously, we thought our good work – and our name familiarity – would work well to cement our start in a lobbying and public relations business.

It worked.

Often, the name Conkling Fiskum & McCormick (yes, I was trapped in the middle!) was shortened to CFM, initials which are still used today and which have gained notice for the quality of our work in Oregon and regionally, as well as in our federal lobbying office in Washington, D.C.

When one of the original founding partners – Pat McCormick – retired from CFM a few years ago to start a public relations form with his daughter, we retained the initials, though gave up the name McCormick.

And, in a nod to a specific commitment in our work, we added the word “strategic” to our title, which indicated that we intended to offer strategic, not just tactical, services. Strategy is a big word, connoting a commitment to establishing over-arching goals and objectives before engaging in tactics.

So, we became CFM Strategic Communications. And, for my part, I continue to like the name because it, in fact, underlines the professional perspective we take to our work.

What’s in a name? Not much on its own, but, if you use the name to build brand awareness and credibility, a name can mean a lot. For us, at CFM Strategic Communications, our name has served us well.

**********

Footnote: As the intro to this blog notes, I have retired from CFM Strategic Communications, but I retain the title “emeritus partner” and continue to participate in CFM work as an informal advisor.

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 headline in this blog appeared in a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor this week. It was followed by this sub-head:

The bureaucratic state is inherently biased politically. Its basic wiring is supportive of big government and this works to lubricate the union support of politicians.

As a former state government manager, I am not opposed to government workers in general as is the case with some on the far right, including one who wrote the letter.  Here are excerpts.

“J.T. Young’s “How to Dig Into the Deep State” (Op-Ed, March 27) is on target in tracing the dangers of an unaccountable, bloated bureaucracy to the balanced powers of the three branches of government designed by our Founders. His observations are not limited to the federal government but extend to state, county and municipal authorities, dramatically swelling the numbers and influence of unelected civil servants. Secondly, these bureaucrats largely serve with little oversight and impunity principally due to the clout of their civil-service unions.

“Finally, the bureaucratic state is inherently biased politically. Its basic wiring is supportive of big government and this works to lubricate the union support of politicians, who repay with overly generous benefit packages and endless backing of a greater bureaucracy. Want to guess which party is privileged by the bureaucratic state?”

I have often thought about what appears to me to an often-unholy alliance between Democrats in power – such as in the Oregon Legislature – and public employee unions that fund that power.

It works like this.

Public employee unions deduct money from worker dues to create huge political contribution funds. Then, they donate the vast majority, if not every dollar, of the funds to Democrats. Then, the Democrats in power strain to provide benefits for those who put them there.

In the extreme, this is a toxic transaction that works against reasonable, middle ground decisions in public policy.

What’s the solution?

Who knows? It is unconstitutional to bar contributions from public employee unions – it is called “free speech” – just as it is unconstitutional to bar contributions from businesses – it also is “free speech.”

My notion is that both sides – public employee unions and business – should devote their political contribution resources to helping to fund the campaigns of those who will do the best job once they win election. And, by the “best job,” I mean finding solutions in the middle, which is often where the best decisions are anyway.

Contributions should not just be based on party affiliation.

Too much to expect? Yes.

But, still there is place for positive aspirations. If there wasn’t, I would stop paying attention to 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 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 headline of this blog also was the headline in a major story that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on the day before Easter.

Here are excerpts from the article:

“How did this happen? How did a ragtag band of nobodies from the far edges of the Mediterranean world become such a dominant force in just two and a half centuries? The historical sociology of this extraordinary phenomenon has been explored by Rodney Stark of Baylor University, who argues that Christianity modeled a nobler way of life than what was on offer elsewhere in the rather brutal society of the day.

“In Christianity, women were respected as they weren’t in classical culture and played a critical role in bringing men to the faith and attracting converts. In an age of plagues, the readiness of Christians to care for all the sick, not just their own, was a factor, as was the impressive witness to faith of countless martyrs. Christianity also grew from within because Christians had larger families, a by-product of their faith’s prohibition of contraception, abortion and infanticide.

“For theologians who like to think that arguments won the day for the Christian faith, this sort of historical reconstruction is not particularly gratifying, but it makes a lot of human sense. Professor Stark’s analysis still leaves us with a question, though: How did all that modeling of a compelling, alternative way of life get started? And that, in turn, brings us back to that gaggle of nobodies in the early first century A.D. and what happened to them.

“What happened to them was the Easter Effect.

“There is no accounting for the rise of Christianity without weighing the revolutionary effect on those nobodies of what they called “the Resurrection”: their encounter with the one whom they embraced as the Risen Lord, whom they first knew as the itinerant Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, and who died an agonizing and shameful death on a Roman cross outside Jerusalem. As N.T. Wright, one of the Anglosphere’s pre-eminent biblical scholars, makes clear, that first generation answered the question of why they were Christians with a straightforward answer: because Jesus was raised from the dead.”

Consider the basic proposition in the article.

What is labeled “a ragtag band of nobodies from the far edges of the Mediterranean world” became a dominate force in the world in just two and half centuries based on a other-worldly reality: Jesus was raised from the dead.

All of this was driven home to me as my wife and I attended an Easter service at our church, Salem Alliance. For me, it is always one of the most uplifting services of the year because it attests to the reality that infuses our lives with purpose and commitment: Jesus was raised from the dead.

Frankly, the service this year was a little less upbeat than in some past years. Not sure why.

Of course, there was still an emphasis on the reality of the resurrection, but, as an expression of personal priority, I would have been happier if an important hymn would have been sung: Up from Grave He Arose.

Here are the words of the refrain, which still resonate with me nearly every day.

Up from the grave He arose;
with a mighty triumph o’er his foes;
He arose a victor from the dark domain,
and He lives forever, with his saints to reign.
He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ arose!

Great words – and true ones!

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.

Washington Post writer James Hohmann has an excellent column this week outlining failures of the Trump Administration. He points to six important deficits, which helps to get past the daily dose of Trump tweets and end up with a bigger-picture list of troubles.

Without appropriate attribution, I repeat Hohmann’s list here.

In summary, Hohmann says “Trump is either woefully uninformed or intentionally misleading the American people” about his Administration. As an example, Hohmann points to Trump’s conduct on the DACA issue.

With a trio of temperamental tweets on Easter Sunday and three follow-ups on the next day, Trump announced there will be no deal to save the 700,000 “dreamers” whose futures he put in peril by ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Trump also called on Republicans to change the rules of the Senate to pass anti-immigration legislation with a simple majority and threatened to kill the North American Free Trade Agreement if Mexico does not step up border security.

The president then falsely claimed that there are “big flows of people” who are sneaking into the United States “because they want to take advantage of DACA.”

In truth, to be eligible for the program created by former president Barack Obama, immigrants must have lived in the United States since 2007, have arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have been younger than 31 on June 15, 2012. Anyone who came after does not qualify.

That leads Hohmann to his summary of huge problems with the Trump presidency.

• This is the improvisational presidency. There is no strategy. There is no message discipline. There is no process. Every modern White House plans out policies it wants to roll out months in advance. There is no calendar now.
• Trump does not understand how Congress works. He’s demanding that Senate Republicans use the “Nuclear Option” to pass his preferred immigration legislation with 51 votes, instead of 60. In February, though, only 36 of the 51 GOP members voted for the bill that reflected his demands.

Anyone with a sense of history who has thought through the institutional dynamics at play recognizes that ending the filibuster would, over the long-term, benefit liberals dramatically more than conservatives. The left wants bigger government and further-reaching laws than the right, and making it easier to pass new laws would enable that.

If only 51 votes are needed to pass bills, Democrats could raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, ban assault weapons and create single-payer health care next time they get the majority. Mitch McConnell, who got elected to the Senate in 1984, understands this. Trump does not.

• The president does not think through the second- and third-order consequences of his decisions. He’s undeniably motivated by a desire for instant gratification. Trump often appears to be thinking more about the next move than the end game. He also seems, especially on Twitter, more focused on scoring short-term political points than worrying about possible costs down the road.

Just like he does not care that ending the filibuster would hurt his adopted party when Republicans inevitably lose control of the Senate in the future, his provocations toward Mexico are generating ripple effects that could eventually make America less safe.

• Proximity is power in Trump’s White House. Most aides spent Easter with their families, including White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. But Trump was accompanied for the past four days at Mar-a-Lago by senior policy adviser Stephen Miller.

The former spokesman for Jeff Sessions in the Senate is the leading advocate for nativist policies in the president’s orbit. More than anyone else, he’s torpedoed the prospect of a bi-partisan breakthrough on immigration by encouraging Trump’s base instincts.

Because Trump lacks many core convictions, he’s often swayed by the last person he speaks with before making decisions. That’s one reason staffers are even more eager to travel with him and be around the Oval Office than during a more traditional presidency.

• He’s heavily influenced by cable news punditry. Trump’s tweets refer to a so-called “caravan” of immigrants who are heading to the United States. He appears to have gotten this formulation from a segment that aired on “Fox & Friends” early Sunday morning, which was based on a BuzzFeed story from Friday about more than a thousand Central Americans – primarily from Honduras – who are on a month-long trip toward the U.S. border.
• Trump is not a reliable negotiating partner because he moves the goal posts. Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill find the president difficult to work with because he’s inconsistent about what he wants. He threatened to veto the omnibus spending bill the week before last, after saying he supported it, because there was not enough money for a border wall.

Then he signed it anyway. Trump promised to show “great heart” for the dreamers. At one point, he said he’d protect the DACA kids in exchange for wall money. Democrats reluctantly agreed. Then he changed his demands, insisting that they also go along with massive reductions in levels of legal immigration. Now he tweets: “NO MORE DACA DEAL.”

“Time and time again, the president has walked away from bi-partisan proposals that are exactly what he asked for,” complained Nancy Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

For my part, I think Trump wins support in some quarters for exactly reasons such as those listed above. He doesn’t come across as a political figure who understands how to get things done in a complicated organization – the U.S. government. Rather, he succeeds in the minds of supporters, at least some of the time, exactly because he doesn’t understand government.

He thinks that just because he says it, it is true – and his views should drive the decisions without anyone else’s perspective.

That, of course, is stupid. No one wants a political figure without an agenda, someone who caters to every whim and caprice. But, what we do need is a leader with a sense of ethics, someone who acts with the interests of America in view rather just his own selfish, ill-informed ideas.

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 a week I look forward to every year – the week when the Masters’ Golf Tournament is played on the iconic Augusta National golf course in Georgia.

For me, it’s mesmerizing to watch the tournament on TV. I have no difficulty watching every shot!

And that’s even more true since, in 2015, I had the good fortune to join my daughter, Lissy, and son-in-law, Tim, to attend the tournament in-person

What a great experience!

From Seattle (where my kids) live, we flew to Atlanta, then rented a car for the three-hour drive to Augusta.

There, we were scheduled to meet with a broker who, we hoped, had our Masters’ tickets. It was dark by the time we arrived and we managed to find the broker’s “office,” which actually was his house in Augusta.

He was there, sitting in his living room at his desk while, in the background, friends played pool while eating pizza.

Did he have the tickets? Yes.

My daughter had checked out the broker on-line and he appeared to be reputable. You’re never sure, however, given stories of brokers fleecing ticket buyers.

With our tickets in hand, we moved on to where we were staying, which was a La Quinta Motel about a mile from one of the Master’s tournament parking lots. My daughter checked on-line to learn that the normal, non-Masters’ tournament time price for the motel was $55 per night.

For us, it was $550, but we were glad to pay it to have a convenient place to stay. And, for my part, I don’t begrudge retailers in Augusta trying to make money one week every year.

A few more interesting highlights:

• Parking at the Masters is free. Incredible. Just think how much money the tournament loses by not charging for parking.
• But, then not charging is okay because, the tournament, which has been held at Augusta National for more than 80 years, makes enough money each year to offset the “loss” of parking revenue.
• If you are member of Augusta National, the club adds up its budget every year, whatever it is, then divides that total by the number of members and sends you your bill. Of course, you pay it without complaint.
• Speaking of not charging, or at least cheap prices, food at the Masters’ tournament is not expensive. Staff does a great job of handling long lines and not charging much for what you want, which probably includes a pimento sandwich. I had one – and one was enough!
• If you attend the Masters’ Tournament, you are called a “patron,” not a fan or a member of the crowd.
• Staff at the Masters’ enforce a few simple rules on the grounds, including:

+ You are not allowed to run

+ You are not allowed to wear your golf hat backwards

+ If you are watching on a hillside, you are not allowed to lie down

• Masters’ fans routinely observe qualities of good behavior. They cheer for good shots. They never audibly yell for bad shots.
• If you buy a Master’s chair – almost everyone does – you can place your chair on any hole, then leave to walk the course. While you are gone, another “patron” may use your chair for a time, but, then, when you return, he or she will readily give you back your chair. In that way, the tournament has a built-in set of extra bleachers.

By the way, Jordan Spieth won the tournament in 2015, leading wire-to-wire and shooting a record-tying 270 (−18) to win his first major at the age of 21. He was four strokes ahead of runners-up Phil Mickelson and Justin Rose, both previous major golf tournament champions.

We weren’t there for the finish. After watching parts of the par 3 tournament on Wednesday and the first round on Thursday, we hustled back to Atlanta for the flight home. Then, back in Seattle, we watched the weekend rounds to see Spieth’s win.

[At the par 3 tournament, we had great seats on the sixth hole about 15 yards behind the players. There, former U.S. Secretary of State Condolezza, an Augusta National Golf Club member was the host, welcoming players to the tee. As we watched shots on the sixth hole, we were about 150 yards or so from the fourth green where, at one point, we heard a huge roar. It was because the best golfer in history, Jack Nicklaus, had made a hole-in-one on the fourth green. Every golfer on the sixth green made the long walk to number 4 to congratulate Nicklaus on his feat!]

If Spieth’s win was one for the ages, as it had been described given his youth and wire-to-wire victory, so was our trip to the hallowed ground of Augusta National.

If my daughter were to list the Top 10 events of her life, the Masters’ would be on it. Same for me!