PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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.

Principled. Humble. Honest. Humanity. Servant.

Those are words no one would hear in politics today as those who are vying for president practice the politics of personal destruction.

But those words describe Mark Hatfield, a political leader who rose to serve as Oregon’s governor and then represented the state in Congress for 30 years.

These days, day-by-day, headlines are made by those who tear down others.

It’s time for all immigrants to leave this country. It’s time to build a wall so no one we don’t like can enter this country. It’s time to mock those with physical disabilities. It’s time for women to take their proper place – second place – in life.

And Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are world leaders to be admired and mimicked.

Sound like Donald Trump? It does.

Or, it’s time to mix public office with a private foundation, providing favors for those who pay for them. And, all the while, keep your communications private by using a personal e-mail system that includes transmission of classified material.

Sound like Hillary Clinton? It does.

Or, tear into Congress as a do-nothing institution – even though you are a part of it — because it doesn’t go your way, all the way.

Sound like Ted Cruz? It does.

But, thankfully, back to Hatfield. I had the privilege of sitting in an early evening seminar earlier this week at Willamette University where Hatfield served as a professor and administrator from 1950-56, before he entered public life, first as a member of the Oregon Legislature, then as Secretary of State, then as governor from 1959-67, and finally as U.S. Senator from 1967-97.

The occasion for remembering Hatfield’s legacy was an event sponsored by the Willamette University Archives and Special Collections, the History Department and the Politics Department.

Within ear-shot of the late senator’s wife, Antoinette, his family and his long-time chief of staff, Salem’s own Gerry Frank, several Hatfield staff members over the years provided glimpses into the senator’s role in and contributions on international policy, starting with his principled opposition to the Vietnam War, continuing with his attempts to block nuclear proliferation and culminating with his work to tame hunger in Africa and other starving regions.

Hatfield was a courageous leader who stood for something even if it was not politically popular. He stood on principle. He held his ground.

In contrast to today’s political diatribes, which become all too personal, Hatfield didn’t let differences over policy harm his personal relationships. It was said of him that he might differ on policy, but never on friendship.

I long for a return to the days of politics practiced under leaders like Mark Hatfield. He was one of the main reasons why I got into the political game in the first place. And the loss of leaders of integrity and grace like Hatfield is one of the reasons that I am content now to sit on the sidelines in retirement.

We need Hatfield’s type again. That’s why, when the time comes to vote for president this November, I may even write in his name as a statement about my own aspirations for the country’s top political 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 to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 an Oregon state government manager and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing pubic policy – to what I write. If you are reading this, thanks for doing so and please don’t hesitate to respond so we can engage in a dialogue, not just a monologue.]

After a recent visit to the D-Day killing fields in Normandy, France, I had an unsettling, uncomfortable thought, one which first crossed my mind on a previous visit to Germany.

The thought is this: What prompted the German people to react positively enough to Adolph Hitler that they allowed him try to conquer Europe, rule the world, and come close to wiping out an entire race of people?

These thoughts were driven home even more starkly when I got home as I read the book, “1944: FDR and the Year that Changed History,” by Jay Wink, a New York Times best selling author. His book lays out, in sordid detail, the actions of Germany as, under Hitler, it worked to wipe out a race of people in ways too traumatic to describe here.

Incredible that the German people could allow their leader to engage in this genocide.

What’s more, could the nearly unthinkable happen again, including to us in the United States?

My unsettling answer: Yes.

Listen only to one Donald Trump who tries to rally Americans to oppose the losses of the Obama years (he would describe the losses in far more strident terms), to recover from what he would call the economic malaise of the last few years, and to rid the United States of a race – or, rather, races — of people. We call them immigrants.

Trump doesn’t admit this part, but he would have to scrap the U.S. Constitution, plus spend billions of dollars over many years to achieve his objective to break up families and send immigrants somewhere, thus enabling this country to emerge with a master race, free of immigrants.

To underline the reality, think back to what you know of Hitler’s rise to power. To help, here’s a quote from an academician who wrote about that development.

“By the early 1930s, Germany was in desperate shape. Its defeat in World War I and the harsh conditions imposed by the United States, Britain and France in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles – including debilitating reparation payments to the victors – had left Germany humiliated and impoverished, with ruinous inflation eating away at its economy.

“It all made for fertile ground for Hitler’s radical nationalistic ideology. The Nazi leader proposed to stop all reparation payments, to give all Germans jobs and food, and to make them proud to be German again. And he blamed Jews for most of Germany’s problems.”

So, consider what Trump advocates. This from a recent column by Leonard Pitts drawing comparisons between Hitler and Trump:

• Like Hitler, Trump has watched approvingly as his followers use violence to silence hecklers, dissenters and protesters.
• Like Hitler, Trump offers few real plans or strategies for confronting the nation’s challenges, giving voters instead the assurance that he, by force of personality alone, will defeat them.
• Like Hitler, Trump has presented the electorate a scapegoat for its fears and vulnerabilities. Hitler gave his people the Jews. Trump has given his the Muslims.
• Like Hitler, Trump proposes to register, surveil and restrict the scapegoat populace. Nor, like Hitler, is he overly concerned with the niceties of civil or human rights. “We’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago,” he has said.

My hope – yes, my prayer — is that citizens in United States will realize the specter of what Trump proposes before it is allowed to happen.

Footnote: I would challenge Donald Trump to read the 1944 book mentioned above. Here is a quote from page 169, which recounts the actions by the Nazis to rout Jews from their homes in what looked like a move to deport, but which actually was the first step of a death march:

“In the provinces, in Baja or Ruthenia or Kecskemet, there was chaos and confusion. In city after city, Nazi storm troopers swarmed through the streets, launching bruising roundups: Families were dragged from their homes, leaving behind unfinished bowls of soup, a slab of dough waiting to be kneaded, and books and bags and other belongings strewn in the corridors or streets, awaiting looters or the ready fingers of the Hungarian police. And ahead of them – though few wanted to admit it to themselves and few, if any, could fully comprehend what lay in store – was the last stop, the place where Jews from all across Europe were gathered for slaughter. Many were wearing their finest clothes, as if they were off to the theater or to a wedding.”

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 lawmakers trek to Salem for their “short annual legislative session,” the time is right to emphasize again questions legislators should ask as they contemplate adding to Oregon laws.

Before listing those questions, let me deal quickly with the subject of annual sessions.

It used to be that Oregon’s Constitution limited sessions to every-other-year – the odd year. That changed several years ago when, led by Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, legislators proposed and voters approved a move to annual sessions.

Some of us involved as lobbyists worried that annual sessions could be the first step down a slippery slope to a professional legislature, one that operated much like Congress. But Courtney and others sold the idea as a way for legislators to move farther toward being equal with the Legislative Branch.

He also said the short session – it lasts only for a month – would deal with housekeeping measures, emergencies and other smaller-gauge issues that could not wait until the regular odd-year sessions. It would not be a session devoted to major policy proposals.

Well, here is how Courtney’s counterpart in the Senate, Senator Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, put it last week in a news release that got statewide play:

“As I recall, Oregonians were sold on the idea of annual meetings with the promise that the “short” session would focus on balancing the budget, making small legislative “fixes,” often referred to as “housekeeping measures,” and responding to emergencies that need immediate attention from the Legislature.

“I’m sorry to report that the “short session” has become little more than a setting for the majority party to pursue an over-reaching agenda of tax increases, regulation, and ideological issues dear to the progressives who rule Portland and to a great extent, the rest of Oregon.”

As examples of over-reaching proposals, Ferrioli listed a minimum wage increase, a “cap and trade” energy mandate that he said would raise energy costs for businesses and families, and a mandate for affordable housing that would force construction contractors to build a certain amount of below-cost housing units for people of limited means, to be paid for by higher costs passed on to more traditional home buyers.

Indeed, all of those proposals have been talked about as legislators get ready for their sojourn in Salem.

As they arrive, I believe they should be prepared to ask at least four questions in relation to each legislative proposal, however big or small it is.

1.  What is the problem for which a proposed policy or action is deemed to be the solution? This question is seldom raised or discussed.

2.  Is there an appropriate role for government to play? The answer, if the question is even raised, is rarely no.

3.  If there is, what does the state expect to get for the money it is spending — in other words, what is the expected return on investment? This is an apparently foreign concept.

4.  How will state government action affect the private sector, especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom the state depends for money to fund its operations? This is seldom discussed, unless raised by those lobbying for Oregon businesses.

If legislators would ask and answer these questions with a constructively critical eye, we’d have a better legislature and better results.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 used to be that you could use the term conventional wisdom when talking about politics.

It was not always smart to do because there was a sense that, in being conventional, the term was out of touch with reality. It was just conventional, not progressive and up-to-date – and only term applied to what was thought by certain experts in politicsl.

But, for this post, I use the term to encompass what used to be the best of politics in a democracy, perhaps not pretty, but effective in delivering a candidate’s message to the people.

There was a right way to be involved in politics. You would try to put your best foot forward. You would reckon with the interests of a constituency and try to meet them. You might use advertising techniques to reach citizens with your message, but you also would try to assure that a message passed muster as to the truth.

You would try not to offend anyone or any group intentionally. Why do so when asking for that individual or group to consider you as a candidate?

But, in today’s political world, it appears that conventional wisdom is gone.

Look no farther than one Donald Trump. He doesn’t care what he says or who he offends. He knows best. His rampant ego is on full display.

He wraps his arms around world leaders like Vladimir Putin in Russia who, in his own country, kills those who disagree with him. He also endorses the ways of South Korean dictator Kim Jong-un who kills his relatives to stay in power.

Trump ridicules those with physical disabilities. He displays his hatred for women. He hates all immigrants.

And, yes, then he aligns himself with Sarah Palin, the worst candidate for vice president when John McCain chose her as his running mate, then lost the election. Perhaps Trump should ask Palin to make another run for vice president.

Consider this, then shudder. For all of Trump’s over-the-top, offensive rhetoric, he could actually become president. Makes Canada look inviting.

If it wasn’t enough for Trump to turn politics on its head, consider Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side. He would turn the United States into a socialist state by expanding government so no one could earn standing by hard work and innovation.

Or Hillary Clinton. Even a past U.S. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, said the other day that, based on the evidence, Clinton should be indicted for failing to protect classified material when she used her own, private e-mail system to keep her views from seeing the light of day when she acted as Secretary of State.

Or, go one more step down this foreboding road. Consider the candidacy of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz. With a holier-than-thou attitude, Cruz skewers anyone in his path toward what he hopes is the Republican nomination.

Enough said.

Just this addition. For what my vote is worth – yes, just one vote – I will not be casting it for any of those names listed above. I believe we need a principled leader in the nation’s highest office, one who will call us to enlightened citizenship and who has the courage to lead others to find the smart middle ground on issues that face us, including economic and national security.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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 Department of Pet Peeves is now open.

At the behest of the director, me, the department has been closed for several weeks. But, given the character of issues listed below, it was time to open the department again.

The processes and hours for the department are under the absolute control of one person – me. I also am the single authority about what makes it to the pet peeves list and what does not.

So, in the spirit of those dictates, here is a list of new pet peeves, which, you will see range across the landscape:

INSURANCE ADVERTISING

I have one question here: Why do insurance companies – especially car insurance companies – do so much advertising? I suppose the answer is that they want potential buyers to notice.

But I ask this: Why doesn’t some enlightened public official – yes, there are a few left – introduce legislation to ban insurance advertising and direct the companies, instead, to allocate the insurance resources for advertising to premium reductions. That way we would have to listen less to how each company save us so much money, as well as could rid ourselves of that mind-bending Farmers Insurance jingle!

I am not one who normally advocates for simple government solutions to private sector problems. Goodness knows that we have enough of those already. But this time I make an exception.

Require insurance companies to gain new business by relying on the Internet, which is where a lot of business is done anyway, including by sites which prepare costs across the insurance market. Then, mandate premium decreases.

Sound good? I vote yes.

WHY DOESN’T GOVERNMENT ASK THESE QUESTIONS?

If you hear about some kind of problem – not enough health care, how much health care costs, traffic congestion, environmental regulation – one typical response is to say, yes, we need more government.

But I contend that we often need less. If government and those trying to influence would ask and answer a basic question – is government well-suited to deal with this problem – we’d be better off. If the answer was an intentional no, we’d be even better off.

When I worked for Oregon’s last Republican Governor Vic Atiyeh, he asked that question and sometimes came to the “no” answer.

I advocate that government and those trying to influence it answer these questions:

1. What is the problem for which a proposed law, policy or action is designed to be the solution? In other words, why are we doing this?

2. Is there an appropriate role for government to play?

3. If there is, what is government getting for the money it is spending? [Too often, there is no analysis of the return on investment.]

4. How will government action affect the private sector – especially individual and corporate taxpayers on whom government depends for money to fund its operations?

GOOD WRITING, BUT BAD GRAMMAR

I have cited this issue before, but a pet peeve in writing is when the verb doesn’t agree with the noun.

Consider this recent quote from a piece by often-astute political analyst Fred Barnes, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

“A series of Mrs. Clinton’s flip-flops aimed at neutralizing positions taken by Mr. Sanders have played a part in her troubles.”

The verb should have been “has played.” Perhaps Mr. Barnes writing sounds better, but right is right.

The Barnes piece, by the way, is worth reading as is contends that Mrs. Clinton is in deep trouble in the Democrat presidential campaign because she is “stuck in the past” and voters are clamoring for “populist, anti-establishment and future-oriented candidates.” Mrs. Clinton is none of those and, so, she suffers when compared to Bernie Sanders and, beyond that, to Donald Trump.

WHY DOES IT TAKE SO LONG TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED MISDEEDS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS

I have two examples here – former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The pace of the investigations is glacial. We hear nothing for months, then on occasion, updates dribble out.

As Oregonians and Americans, we deserve better

In Oregon, there is no reason why an investigation of Kitzhaber has not come to a conclusion. Nationally, my skeptical side – perhaps even cynical side – wonders if the Obama Administration is delaying an investigation of Clinton until after the election.

Just wondering.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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.

Myths and facts are almost interchangeable in the political campaign being run by one Donald Trump.

He never lets facts get in the way of his wild, off-the-wall proclamations.

He appears not to have a care in the world about whom he criticizes or defames as he runs what can only be described as a despicable campaign for the Republican nomination for president. In some ways, unfortunately, he is changing politics in this country, with little focus on public policy issues and extreme focus on vindictive rhetoric.

For him, the end – whatever end he wants that benefits himself – justifies the extremes of his talk. Many in the media appear to be buying into it, focusing on the horse race and the sound bite rather than injecting an appropriate level of journalistic skepticism into the coverage.

The Wall Street Journal, long a leader in espousing a conservative point of view, is different from the norm, preferring to limit the so-called “news” coverage of Trump’s extreme statements and to focus, instead, on opinions of his campaign.

Using the Wall Street Journal as a main resource, I am focusing here on some of the Trump-uttered myths and the true facts.

MYTH #1: Trump has trumpeted that throwing out all immigrants and building a wall between the United States and Mexico would solve all of the country’s problems.

FACT: Deporting an estimated 11 million immigrants and building a border wall would cost an estimated $935 billion over two decades. Plus, families in this country would be torn apart, taking children from their parents and trashing the reality of the United States as a place that welcomes immigrants. As described this week by South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley in her Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address, “no one who works hard and follows the laws of this country should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

MYTH #2: Trump has praised North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un as a credible leader by saying, “you’ve got to give him credit. He goes in, he takes over, he is the boss. It’s incredible. He wiped out the uncle, he wiped out this one, that one.”

FACT: Kim Jong-un is a dictator who kills people, including his own family member, to get his way.

MYTH #3: Trump has said Russian leader Vladimir Putin is a credible leader, “a very bright and talented man.” And he crows about being complimented by the Russian leader.

FACT: Putin is a ruthless leader who kills opponents, including journalists, to get his way.

MYTH#4: Trump has said he would make deep cuts in personal and corporate income taxes.

FACT: To a conservative, that may sound good on the surface, but the reality is different. What he proposes would reduce revenue by almost $12 trillion over the next decade, which would more than double the national debt. Of course, these revenue losses could be offset by cutting federal budgets, but Trump has not provided even scant information on how he would go about doing that.

At best, as Wall Street Journal columnist William Galston has written, “Mr. Trump is guilty of disregarding prudence, decency and facts.”

Trump hopes we will do the same.

I won’t.

Two polarities:

1. Cover all citizens with health insurance much like the mandate to carry car insurance.
2. Allow the health insurance coverage issue to be resolved in the private marketplace much like buying a loaf of bread.

Instead of dealing with these issues, Congress took an ill-advised step as the new year dawned. It sent an ObamaCare repeal bill to the president’s desk.

Guess what he’ll do. Veto it. [And, he did, even as he contended that ObamaCare is a signal achievement of his terms as president, one he will use to keynote his final State of the Union address to Congress. Plus, his veto will be veto-proof in Congress where they are not the votes to override it.]

Would have better the a vote to repeal ObamaCare if the bright minds in Congress – yes, there are some – would have sat down to carve out a reasonable alternative. Call both sides of the aisle to a round table and ask this question: What would be better than what currently exists? Then, define it and send a bill to the floors of both the House and the Senate and on to the president’s desk.

Obama might veto that, too, but then we’d know for sure what we suspect now – that the president doesn’t want middle ground solutions to pressing national problems. He wants another pelt on the wall of what he considers his legacy.

All of this might have been difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in a presidential election year. Still, worth the effort.

A both-sides-of-the-aisle solution is what should have happened the first time around instead of the Democrats-only decision on the original ObamaCare.

If Congress would have taken this kind of step, it also would have helped all candidates on the presidential campaign trail. For now, every GOP presidential candidate’s health-policy platform begins with repealing the law, but for most, that’s also where it ends.

Questions about how they would pull back a law that’s largely been implemented — and what, if anything, they would enact in its place — have gone largely unanswered in a primary contest dominated by national-security issues and the uncertain state of the economy.

A middle-ground solution on health care should contain this mandate – yes, a government mandate: Everyone should be required to buy health insurance coverage.

Think of this parallel – car insurance. To drive a car, you are required to buy insurance. If you don’t and get in an accident, you are held to account. The same should be true of health insurance. If you buy it, good. If you don’t, you are held to account.

One virtue of such a mandate would be that those with insurance wouldn’t have to pay for those without it. That happens now, thus increasing the cost of insurance for anyone who buys it.

Those around the negotiating table would have to grapple with the tough question of how to cover low-income citizens who don’t have enough money to buy health insurance. That would probably mean what it means today — increases in the ranks of those covered by the government’s Medicaid program, and incentives such as tax credits to prod purchasing.

This is not a definitive prescription for what hails health care today. But it is a call for a bi-partisan approach to solving the problem, which, itself, would be a breath of fresh air in the halls of Congress and in the Oval Office.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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, a gubernatorial 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 knew my bias, you could imagine my joy when I came across this quote in Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan’s latest book, “The Time of Our Lives.”

“To write is to think, and to write well is to think well.”

Noonan attributed the quote to historian David McCullough.

She agrees with it.

So do I.

In my career in government and the private sector, whenever I was in the business of hiring for a vacancy, I focused on whether the candidate had the ability to write. That mattered because, to me, the ability to write indicated something about the candidate’s ability to think.

I often resorted to a writing test at the time of the interview, giving the candidate an assignment on the fly rather than relying on a writing scrapbook.

The question was not whether a candidate could write in my style. The question was whether the candidate could write quickly and, to go back to the quote above, write well as an evidence of the ability to think well.

Noonan goes on in another section of her book to describe the craft of writing.

“I want to take a minute to talk about my view on writing. To me, it is a full body exercise. What you write comes from your brain, heart, spirit, soul and psyche, you hold nothing back, all parts are engaged. When you’re writing you give the creative part of your brain full sway, you let it dominate, you don’t let your critical side mug it or slow it down. Later, in editing, you bring your critical self to the fore, question the assertion, kill the aside. But the point is to give your writing everything you have at the moment you’re doing it and rethink when the page has cooled.”

Good words. Writing requires concentration. It requires putting your whole self into the exercise. It requires focus.

Then, when a first draft is done, it requires editing with a constructively critical eye.

For Noonan, as she compiled her book, which is a collection of what she believes are her best columns over the years, it also required an ability to put past work in context. As she re-read the pieces she had written, she realized she might have struck the wrong tone and, if given a chance for a mulligan (pardon the golf reference), would write differently.

But, that, too, is a product of writing – the ability to look at past work and to improve and learn.

So, here’s to writing well and thinking well.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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, 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.

Every morning I read the Wall Street Journal for at least two reasons: First, the writing is of high quality, a distinction in this era of bad writing in newspapers; and, second, almost inevitably, I find new thought-provoking ideas.

As you might imagine, many of the quotes that appear below deal with one Donald Trump, who continues, by bluster and name-calling, to confound political analysts and threaten the very future of sound political discourse.

Bret Stephens, December 15 column

The central foreign policy challenge facing the next president is how to re-establish American credibility with friends who no longer trust us and enemies who no longer fear us.

William McGurn, December 15 column

Instead of whining about Mr. Trump’s support and the stupidity of his followers, here’s to the Republican contender with the wit to try to take that support away from Mr. Trump by offering Mr. Trump’s voters a clear, strong and superior alternative.

Charles Krauthammer, December 10

Brilliant. And very economical. That is, if you think that bloodthirsty terrorists — “people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” as Trump describes them — will feel honor-bound to tell the truth to an infidel customs officer. They kill wantonly but, like George Washington, cannot tell a lie. On this logic hinges the great Maginot Line with which Trump will protect America from jihad. I decline to join the chorus denouncing the Trump proposal as offensive and un-American. That’s too obvious. What I can’t get over is its sheer absurdity.

Gerald Seib, December 16

The exchanges in many ways captured the tenor of the entire Republican race to date. Candidates such as Mr. Bush have struggled to offer conventional answers in an unconventional year. Mr. Trump, meantime, offers little of the conventional formulas or multi-point plans that once were campaign staples, focusing instead on simply offering himself as the plan of action.

Karl Rove, December 17

“The U.S. would be heading further in this direction if Hillary Clinton becomes president. This might sound outlandish, but consider that President Obama has repeatedly taken unconstitutional actions and sabotaged the separation of powers. “What the president is suggesting,” Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley said regarding Mr. Obama’s executive order on immigration, “is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution.

“A Clinton presidency would ratify the new post-Constitutional order. Mrs. Clinton explicitly says that she will disregard the separation of powers and assume the legislative branch’s prerogative.”

Peggy Noonan, December 18

The Democrats in that time had two debates, with little fanfare, with a vibe of “please don’t watch.” It was less like public officials running for president than people in the witness protection program accidentally strolling onto a stage. In the second debate the stage was almost empty—front-runner Hillary Clinton, an aged Vermont socialist with Einstein hair, and a fit young heartthrob with nothing to lose and nothing to say.

Also, Peggy Noonan, December 18

What a year of wonders. For a good portion of it there were three Republican presidential candidates who, if you added up their polling numbers, had the support of more than half the voters—and they had never, not one of them, won a political office in their lives. On-the-ground Republicans surveying the past 15 years of unwon wars, great recession, feeble recovery and a world on fire, thought: “Who gave us this world? The professional political class. So it’s time to reach outside politics and consider other kinds of experience and attainment.”

Another wonder: The political parties swapped their longtime roles, styles and ways of being. The Democrats became the party of primogeniture, the Republicans of rebellion. The Democrats were once alive, chaotic and brawling, the Republicans staid and orderly. Not anymore. It is the Democrats who are accepting a coronation, the Republicans who said no to ancestral claims. The deflation of Jeb Bush is a huge story. With his failure to rise, the consultant class and shock-and-awe fundraising took it on the chin. Jeb was not the answer to any question the base was asking.

Holman Jenkins, December 19

Our guess is that Mr. Trump has always planned on being satisfied with making a splash and ventilating his high opinion of himself. He will rightly be able to claim that he gave neglected voters a voice and transformed the debate. Notice that he manages to maintain his jolly equanimity even when being vilified. He is not grimly “on a mission” as so many candidates are whose self-image is wrapped up in electoral success.

We could be wrong but the Trump effort is probably self-liquidating. Expect a glorious, “I’ve got better things to do than hang around with you losers” exit just about the time he would have to start spending real money to keep going.

Dave Shiflett (the ghost writer for Donald Trump’s first book), December 22

Instead he rolls merrily along, like fortune’s child, bolstered by terrorist fear and political competitors variously seen as pathological liars, empty suits or the butt-ends of political dynasties. He is also the default candidate for all who have grown weary of culture cops and bureaucratic bullies. For a real-estate guy, he seems to have the political game figured out pretty well.

Bret Stephens, December 22

We also want to turn the Republican Party into a gated community. So much nicer that way. If the lesson of Mitt Romney’s predictable loss in 2012 was that it’s bad politics to tell America’s fastest-growing ethnic group that some of their relatives should self-deport, or to castigate 47% of the country as a bunch of moochers—well, so what? Abraham Lincoln once said “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.” What. Ever. Now the party of Lincoln has as its front-runner an insult machine whose political business is to tell Mexicans, Muslims, physically impaired journalists, astute Jewish negotiators and others who cross his sullen gaze that he has no use for them or their political correctness.

And while we’re building a wall around our party, let’s also take the opportunity to throw out a few impostors in our midst. Like that hack, George Will. Or John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Jeb Bush and every other Republican In Name Only. Or Marco Rubio who didn’t chicken out on immigration reform quite as quickly or convincingly as Ted Cruz did. Or the Republican “Establishment” and “elite”—like the editorial board of this newspaper—who want to flood the country with cheap foreign labor so they can enrich their Wall Street pals.

All of them must be humbled, re-educated or thrown out, like old-time cadres with suspected bourgeois tendencies. How else will real Americans get a hearing and find their voice? What’s a lost election cycle or two when the soul of movement conservatism is at stake?

As for what the soul of that movement is supposed to be, we can figure that out later.  Donald Trump is a candidate of impulses, not ideas. (If you can hire people to write your books you can also hire them to do your thinking.) This doesn’t seem to have perturbed his supporters in the slightest. Mr. Cruz is happy to be on any side of an issue so long as he can paint himself as a “real Republican”—the implicit goal here being the automatic excommunication of anyone who disagrees with him. Naturally, he’s rising.

Karl Rove, December 24

President Harry Truman, by contrast, thought decades ahead. The haberdasher from Missouri reformed the government to meet new challenges after World War II and created international structures that helped contain America’s adversaries and win the Cold War. Mr. Obama’s vision is limited to the coming months, to the next quarter, to the end of his term. Whenever events undermine his view of the world, he has the habit of retreating to an alternate reality. Mr. Obama is a man with an uncommonly rigid, anti-empirical mind.

George Will, December 26

If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness — is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? — you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.

In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible — a conservative party as a constant presence in American politics.

It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over. But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months. The larger portion should understand this:

One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was 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, 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 start of any new year is a good time to look ahead to new challenges on the public policy horizon.

Hill.com posted several for the Obama Administration and Congress this week, including the top priority to deal with ISIS-inspired terrorism. So this blog will turn to Oregon rather than focus on national issues.

FINDING THE RIGHT LEADERS IN 2016 ELECTIONS

As someone who has been involved and followed politics for more than 40 years in Oregon, 2016 would be a good time to elect leaders on both sides of the aisle who have the ability to find middle ground on pressing public policy problems. That’s where the best solutions lie anyway.

Too often, those of us who vote choose candidates who mimic our views or appeal to our worst instincts in politics – the fight, the battle, the name calling instead of the commitment to solutions. Now is the time to find different kinds of leaders.

BRINGING EFFECTIVENESS TO STATE AGENCY OPERATIONS

Current Governor Kate Brown has her hands full with problems in three state agencies – the Department of Human Services (DHS), the Energy Department (DOE) and the Department of Transportation (ODOT).

The latter, ODOT, is the least contentious of the three, in part because the administration there, whether you agree with every decision or not, has its act together. The worst of the agency offenders is DHS which has come under fire for failing to monitor contracted providers effectively, thus causing harm to children, especially children who need residential care.

DOE has made headlines threatening its very existence by fouling up state energy tax credit programs.

A test of the governor in the next weeks will revolve around whether she can get a handle on the DHS problems and inject a new level of credibility in the agency. Her chief operative in this challenge is Clyde Saiki, a long-time state government manager who has distinguished himself in several previous roles. He left his new gig as head of the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to take over temporarily at DHS, though he hopes to return to DAS where he serves essentially as chief operating officer for state government.

If the governor cannot get a handle on DHS issues, the failure could affect her election bid, though, at the moment, the run is hers’ to lose as she campaigns for her own four-year term in the state’s top political job.

FINDING WAYS TO BOOST RURAL OREGON

House Republican leader Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte, made headlines recently when he told the Economic Summit meeting that rural Oregon is in crisis.

Targeting his remarks at Portland-area business and political leaders at the Oregon Convention Center, McLane asked: “Are you concerned about rural Oregon or do you believe we’re in crisis? Because that’s different… If it’s a crisis we have a rich history in Oregon of coming together and solving it.”

McLane was right to point out an important issue for all of Oregon’s leaders, including the Democrats who hail from urban Oregon.

When I was deputy director at the Oregon Economic Development Department, all of us there were concerned about the “two Oregons” – urban areas where economic development was possible and rural areas where it often was not.

My hope is that leaders will heed McLane’s admonition to focus on rural Oregon – or at least not to ignore it based on priorities from Portland and Eugene.

IMPROVING GOVERNMENT CREDIBILITY

That title may sound like an oxymoron to those who have watched Oregon state government take its lumps over the last year. Four-time governor John Kitzhaber’s fall from grace gained national publicity as he sacrificed a recently-won fourth term in the governor’s office.

Many observers felt he was tone-deaf by letting his live-in “First Lady,” Cylvia Hayes, work as an unofficial state government employee while using her status to win private lobbying contracts, which displayed an incredible – and, I guess, still alleged — lack of regard for the state’s ethical laws.

On that front, the actions by Kitzhaber and Hayes sparked a commitment to review Oregon’s public records law (ORS 192.500), long held as a statutory commitment to make most records public. And, to put a point on it, did this law apply to e-mail communications. A group of state leaders and private sector representatives (including an official from the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, a client of the firm where I worked as a lobbyist for 25 years, CFM Strategic Communications) is working to bring the public records law into the 21^st century.

The work of this group, plus the overall commitments of state elected officials, will go at least part of the way toward restoring public trust in government, though it should be said that there is a long way to go – and individual actions by government officials always have an effect on whether trust can be built, or if built, retained.

DO “JOBS” MATTER?

The word “jobs” is in quotes because, by it, I mean jobs as a political issue.

It has been surprising to me that few politicians run anymore on the idea of helping the private sector create jobs – jobs that pay salaries to individuals who, in turn, pay taxes and keep government funded, including in what often is the top priority, K-12 education.

Public employee unions are resorting again to singling out corporations in Oregon as the enemy by proposing a measure at the polls next November to increase taxes. Corporate leaders have said that, if the measure passes, some of them will take their business elsewhere.

Even a leading Democrat, Senator Peter Courtney, D-Salem, told business leaders that the union-inspired measure would spark a huge fight at the polls, one he compared to the Civil War and the ghastly deaths at the Battle of Intietam.

Overstatement? Probably because that is a stock in trade for Courtney. But his message also is worth considering. He worries about the battle and what comes of it for Oregon.

So do I! As a veteran state lobbyist, my fondest wish in the New Year would be for competing interests to find a way to sit down at a table – make it a round one – and hash out solutions, including on tax policy, that are the best for all of Oregon.