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.

I have come across two pieces of writing in the last few days that, to me, summarize the true meaning of Christmas, a holiday season whose purpose can become all-too-commercial, all-too-quickly.

I could write my own thoughts, but these do an excellent job of representing what I think. So, I repeat them here.

One, which deserves top billing, is from my wife, Nancy, who writes our annual Christmas letter to friends and family (which, by the way, is a tradition worth preserving).

In the aftermath of senseless tragedies in Paris and San Bernadino, here is how Nancy concluded our Christmas letter this year:

“As we celebrate the birth of our Savior, we remember that Jesus was born into a world of hatred and injustice and ISIS-like violence not unlike ours: Despots trying to eliminate rivals, Herod’s slaughter of the children of Bethlehem, even beheading…It’s all unbelievably current. We choose God’s peace within (Philippians 4:6-7), our wish for all of you in 2016.”

The second piece was written by my friend, Dick Hughes, editorial page editor of the Salem Statesman-Journal, in his column December 20:

**********

Why Americans should embrace ‘Happy Holidays’

As I left the coffee drive-thru on my way to Corvallis on Thursday, the barista declared, “Happy Holidays!”

As I headed along Highway 99W, a sign told me that wine was the perfect Xmas gift.

As I entered Corvallis, a billboard urged me to keep Christ in Christmas.

The billboard is what confounded me.

Oh, I know the concerns: By using generic winter holiday sayings and symbols, companies and clerks are undermining the true meaning of Christmas. In response, good-intentioned Americans are battling what they see as a secular war on Christmas

Despite the outcry over Starbucks’ changing the generic, non-religious design on its winter beverage cups — to an even-more-generic design — I had thought the fight about Christmas seemed less intense this year. But on Saturday, I read about the Texas agriculture commissioner who threatened to slap anyone who wished him “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

Not quite the Christmas spirit.

Not quite the biblical understanding of Christmas, either.

Two thoughts:

First, Jesus Christ cannot be taken out of Christmas.

Christmas is the celebration of the birth of God incarnate, God who came to earth in the form of his son Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary in a humble manger in Bethlehem.

That’s pretty heavy stuff.

Second, if there is any danger to Christmas, it’s the over-commercialization of the day.

Writing in “Christianity for Dummies” — I hadn’t realized there was such a book, although it seems fitting in our simplistic society — Richard Wagner says, “Most of the traditional customs of Christmas, such as gift giving, tree decorating, light hanging, and feasting, come from sources other than the Church.”

The early Church was not particularly concerned about celebrating Jesus’ birthday. History does not even document when he was born; Dec. 25 was chosen arbitrarily.

Neither does the Bible specify how many wise men visited Jesus, Mary and Joseph, an event that occurred sometime after his birth. This fact, however, was lost on a woman who many years ago called my mother to ascertain the appropriate color of clothing for each of the three wise men.

If I correctly recall this episode from my youth, the woman wanted to portray the wise men authentically. Good for her. However, she was upset when Mom explained that the Bible did not specify the wise men’s color coordinates. And then Mom had the audacity to mention that the Bible did not specify the number of wise men. The woman, apparently considering Mom a heretic, hung up.

Yay, Mom!

As for the X in Xmas and other references, historians indicate the letter sometimes was used to denote Christ, just as a fish was and is used to indicate followers of Christ.

I’m not fond of the term Xmas, maybe because it bugged my dad, who was an American Baptist minister. Xmas looks tacky. But it’s not anti-Christmas.

And I’m glad that stores and coffee shops proclaim, “Happy Holidays.” It’s a tribute to our growth as a society that we recognize not everyone celebrates Christmas for what it is.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holyday to those of you who are believers.

And Happy Holidays to all.

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 dictionary defines political discourse this way: Communications of thought by words, talk, conversation, as in “earnest and intelligent discourse.”

Say what?

If that is the definition of political discourse, then it appears to be a lost art in today’s United States. At least that could be said about the presidential primary fights.

According to Kimberley Strassel, a Wall Street Journal columnist, in a piece entitled “No Political Guardrails,” she contends that President Obama has broken all boundaries and both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are following suit. [Earlier, taken with this piece, I reprinted it as part of my blog posts.]

She went on: “Twenty-two years ago, my esteemed colleague Dan Henninger wrote an editorial whose subject was people who don’t think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them, as well as the elites who excuse this lack of self-control and the birth of a less-civilized culture.”

That’s how to make sense, Strassel says, of a presidential race that grows more disconnected from normality.

She points first to Obama who, contrary to his assertions on the campaign trail before he was elected, has set about to destroy Washington’s guardrails. He wants what he wants and, if he can’t get what he wants through political negotiations, he just unilaterally alters – read breaks — the law.

If Congress won’t change the immigration system, Obama refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway.

Obama’s approach appears to have seeped into the national conscience. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, not to mention Ted Cruz.

Clinton routinely vows to govern by dictate. Recently, she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. She may ask Congress to support her plan, but if Congress won’t act, she says she will direct the Treasury Department to use its regulatory authority.

For his part, Trump sent the nation into an uproar with his call for an outright ban on Muslims entering the United States. Trump doesn’t care whether his call is legally or morally sound? He specializes in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct.

Here’s the way Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer put it in a recent piece:

“So how exactly does this work, Donald Trump’s plan to keep America safe from Islamic terrorism by barring entry to all Muslims? He explained it Tuesday on TV. The immigration official will ask the foreigner if he’s a Muslim.

“And if they said, ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?”

“Trump: “That’s correct.”

“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.”

Ditto.

Does this lack of reasoned political discourse occur in Oregon, as well as nationally? Well, the answer is yes, but not usually in a way that generates headlines. More detail in a future post.

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.

Author Joseph Epstein caught my attention with a piece he wrote for the Wall Street that focused on this word – dissensus.

By the sound of the word, it would be possible to imagine its definition, even if it is not a word in my regular vocabulary: Difference of opinion, which, obviously, lacks consensus.

Epstein wrote this under the headline, “Dissensus, the Spirit of Our Age” and this tagline, “Donald Trump could arise only in an atmosphere that is itself soaked in political derision:”

“We are living in a time of great dissensus, when political arguments are not merely rife, but emotionally and verbally, if not actually, violent. People who are certain of the urgency of climate change often treat doubters as if they were hopelessly stupid flat-worlders. People who oppose abortion tend to consider those who feel otherwise as little less than murderers. Run down the list of issues – and an issue, recall, is a subject still in the flux of controversy – and one discovers similarly tempestuous reactions, pro and con, everywhere.”

Epstein, thoughtfully, goes on to say that his own position is to have “moderate views, extremely held.” Whenever the subject of politics come up in one of his social circles, he says he always jumps in with this warning: “I have never lost a political argument, which would be more impressive if I didn’t have to admit that neither I have ever won one.”

So, how does all this relate to Trump?

As the tagline says, Epstein contends that “a figure as deliberately divisive as Donald Trump could arise only in an atmosphere that is itself soaked in political derision.”

“At a time of international crisis and domestic turmoil, where cool heads are called for, Mr. Trump brings a hot head and a loose lip and a level of coarseness hitherto unseen in a presidential campaign. That so many people appear to be not merely amused but enthralled by his crude views is no cause for celebration.”

I agree.

Trump’s recent comment that the U.S. should bar all Muslims from entering this country is only one more indication of the depths to which he’ll go. He’ll say anything – impugning the integrity of all those running against him for the Republican nomination, insulting women, mocking those with disabilities and assuming that anyone other than him is stupid.

Cause for celebration would occur when, as Americans, we have better choices for the individuals who want to be leader of the free world. If our choice comes down to an alleged crook, Hillary Clinton, or a lumbering buffoon, Donald Trump, I’ll vote for someone else – almost anyone else.

Here’s hoping that we will have a choice between ethical leader who will lead this country with a solid recognition of history and values, plus the idea of finding the smart middle ground in the national and international issues that face us.

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 phrase in the headline came to mind as I read Kimberley Strassel’s column in the Wall Street Journal today. It was headlined “No Political Guardrails.”

She is right.

It was a number of years ago when General Colin Powell, then a nationally recognized military leader and a possible candidate for president said he not run for the nation’s highest office because he “bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

Here is way he put it as he delivered a speech commemorating the courageous and positive role Martin Luther King played in America.

“Martin Luther King Jr. would be very disappointed in today’s politics. We have such a lack of civility in our political life now. We are fixed on ideological poles and we seem unable to come together. Dr. King was always saying “can’t we come together, can’t we talk about these issues?” Our founding fathers argued with each other but they also knew that argument is part of the democratic process. But ultimately you have to compromise with each other in order to reach a consensus and keep the country moving forward. If all we do is remain fixed on these polar opposites of our political spectrum, the country will not be moving forward. And we’ve got to find a way through this. And it’s going to happen when the American people say: “Knock it off, stop it. We want to see a different attitude with respect to our political life. We want to see a different level of civility in Washington, D.C.”

That was more than 10 years ago. Imagine what General Powell would say today!

There is no better way to describe loss of civility than to reprint Strassel’s column. She criticizes both Democrats and Republicans for the way they have divided, not united, this country — and both the current president, Barack Obama, as well as the leading candidates from Clinton, to Trump, to Cruz deserve that criticism.

Here’s the column:

No Political Guardrails

President Obama broke all the boundaries—and now Clinton and Trump are following suit.

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Twenty-two years ago, my esteemed colleague Dan Henninger wrote a blockbuster Journal editorial titled “No Guardrails.” Its subject was people “who don’t think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them,” as well as the elites who excuse this lack of self-control and the birth of a less-civilized culture.

We are today witnessing the political version of this phenomenon. That’s how to make sense of a presidential race that grows more disconnected from normality by the day.

Barack Obama has done plenty of damage to the country, but perhaps the worst is his determined destruction of Washington’s guardrails. Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law. If Congress won’t change the immigration system, he refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway. “As to limits, you set your own,” observed Dan in that editorial. This is our president’s motto.

Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”

Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.

On immigration, Mr. Obama ignored statute with executive actions to shield illegals from deportation. Mrs. Clinton brags that she will go much, much further with sweeping exemptions to immigration law.

For his part, Mr. Trump sent the nation into an uproar this week with his call to outright ban Muslims from entering the country. Is this legally or morally sound? Who cares! Mr. Trump specializes in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers. He’d set up a database to track Muslims or force them to carry special IDs. He’d close mosques. He’d deport kids born on American soil. He’d seize Iraq’s oil fields. He’d seize remittance payments sent back to Mexico. He’d grab personal property for government use.

Mr. Obama’s dismantling of boundaries isn’t restrained to questions of law; he blew up certain political ethics, too. And yes there are—or used to be—such things. Think what you may about George W. Bush’s policies, but he respected the office of the presidency. He believed he represented all Americans. He didn’t demonize.

Today’s divisive president never misses an opportunity to deride Republicans or the tea party. He is more scornful toward fellow Americans than toward Islamic State. This too sets new norms. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid now uses the chamber to accuse individual citizens of being “un-American.” Asked recently what “enemy” she was most proud of making, Mrs. Clinton lumped “Republicans” in with “the Iranians.” Ted Cruz rose to prominence by mocking his Republican colleagues as “squishes.” Mr. Trump has disparaged women, the other GOP contenders, Iowans, wives, the disabled, Jews. (Granted, he might have done this even without Mr. Obama’s example.)

Can such leaders be trusted to administer Washington fairly? Of course not. That guardrail is also gone. Mr. Obama egged on his IRS to target conservatives, used his Justice Department to exact retribution on politically unpopular banks, and had his EPA lead an armed raid of an Alaskan mine. Is it any wonder that Bernie Sanders’s climate plan, released this week, includes a vow to bring criminal prosecutions against “climate deniers”? And he would.

For that matter, is it any wonder that some Republicans are calling on the IRS to audit Mrs. Clinton’s foundation? When did conservatives go from wanting to abolish the IRS to wanting to use it against rivals? When did they turn their back on the institutional check of the filibuster? When Democrats busted through those rails, of course.

“No Guardrails” took aim at political and intellectual leaders who failed in their special duty to elevate institutions and rules. When those leaders go further, and openly break all the rules, there really is nothing left to restrain the political passions.

The more outrageous Mr. Trump is, the more his numbers soar. The more Mrs. Clinton promises to cram an agenda down the throats of her “enemies,” the more enthusiastic her base. The more unrestrained the idea, the more press coverage; the more ratings soar, the more unrestrained the idea. The humble candidates—those with big ideas, but with respect for order and honor—are lost to the shouting.

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.

Risk-taking in government can be risky, as the authors of the Cover Oregon fiasco discovered.

Government risk-taking is risky business. If government officials take a policy or program risk and it flops, they are criticized for wasting taxpayer money. If officials avoid taking a risk and a problem festers, they also get criticized for wasting taxpayer money.

Dick Hughes, editorial page editor for the Statesman Journal, says risk-taking is a good idea for government. “If we want government to succeed at a higher level, we must be willing to tolerate failures,” Hughes said. “That sounds counter-intuitive, but most great leaders also have a string of failures – ones from which they learned.”

That sounds good in theory, but maybe less so in practice. In many ways, the deck is stacked against government risk-taking. My 15 years in government service says no risk-taking, however successful, goes unpunished.

It is hard to quarrel with brickbats aimed at foolish risk-taking such as Cover Oregon’s over-reaching attempt to build a health insurance exchange website. Other risk-taking, especially the kind that might take a while to prove out, still earns “gotcha” reporting in the media. Many public managers, who are no fools, quickly grasp the odds are low for risk-taking in government that earns kudos.

There is room for reasonable risk-taking in government, but it requires planning, strategy and discipline, not taking a spin on a roulette wheel. Here are some suggestions based on my experience:

• The risk should result from a consensus. Even good ideas get better when a diverse team vets them and frontline people have a chance to suggest them. When I worked as part of the Executive Department’s management team under Fred Miller, we launched the “Good Ideas Program” (we couldn’t think of a better name), which encouraged fresh thinking and responsible risk-taking. None of the ideas were revolutionary, but many were very good and made a noticeable difference in program efficiency and effectiveness.

• Risk-taking must be able to pass what I call the “front-page test.” You should be able to make a cogent defense of the risk that would stand up in the light of front-page exposure. If an idea couldn’t withstand that kind of public scrutiny, it probably isn’t worth trying.

• Reduce a bright idea to writing. The idea may sound good until you start laying it out on paper. When you write about an idea, you will think it through more clearly –  the rationale, the methods, the answers to tough questions and the results you can realistically achieve. If you can fill in those blanks, you probably have an idea worth considering and implementing.

• Make sure someone is accountable for the good or bad.There will be plenty of people eager to crowd into the picture of a ribbon-cutting, but few willing to be seen on the podium explaining a failure. Make sure the risk has a clear chief risk-taker. Also make sure he or she won’t be tossed to the wolves if there is a failure.

If lawmakers want public managers to take reasonable risks, they need to give them the elbow room to succeed or fail and not pounce on them if they fail. They need to accept some of Dick Hughes’ advice and regard failure as a step toward ultimate success.

That may be harder to do for the news media, but at least reporters and editors can provide a context for risk-taking and explore lessons learned, not just scapegoats to blame.

Risk-taking will always be risky. That’s why you need to do everything possible to make sure the benefits outweigh the risk and responsible risk-takers aren’t skewered for taking risks.

[This blog also was published on the website of the company — CFM Strategic Communications from which I recently retired.]

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.

Government risk-taking is risky business. If government officials take a policy or program risk and it flops, they are criticized for wasting taxpayer money. If officials avoid taking a risk and a problem festers, they also get criticized for wasting taxpayer money.

Dick Hughes, editorial page editor for the Statesman Journal, says risk-taking is a good idea for government. “If we want government to succeed at a higher level, we must be willing to tolerate failures,” Hughes said. “That sounds counter-intuitive, but most great leaders also have a string of failures – ones from which they learned.”

That sounds good in theory, but maybe less so in practice. In many ways, the deck is stacked against government risk-taking. My 15 years in government service says no risk-taking, however successful, goes unpunished.

It is hard to quarrel with brickbats aimed at foolish risk-taking such as Cover Oregon’s over-reaching attempt to build a health insurance exchange website. Other risk-taking, especially the kind that might take a while to prove out, still earns “gotcha” reporting in the media. Many public managers, who are no fools, quickly grasp the odds are low for risk-taking in government that earns kudos.

There is room for reasonable risk-taking in government, but it requires planning, strategy and discipline, not taking a spin on a roulette wheel. Here are some suggestions based on my experience:

• The risk should result from a consensus. Even good ideas get better when a diverse team vets them and frontline people have a chance to suggest them. When I worked as part of the Executive Department’s management team under Fred Miller, we launched the “Good Ideas Program” (we couldn’t think of a better name), which encouraged fresh thinking and responsible risk-taking. None of the ideas were revolutionary, but many were very good and made a noticeable difference in program efficiency and effectiveness.

• Risk-taking must be able to pass what I call the “front-page test.” You should be able to make a cogent defense of the risk that would stand up in the light of front-page exposure. If an idea couldn’t withstand that kind of public scrutiny, it probably isn’t worth trying.

• Reduce a bright idea to writing. The idea may sound good until you start laying it out on paper. When you write about an idea, you will think it through more clearly –  the rationale, the methods, the answers to tough questions and the results you can realistically achieve. If you can fill in those blanks, you probably have an idea worth considering and implementing.

• Make sure someone is accountable for the good or bad.There will be plenty of people eager to crowd into the picture of a ribbon-cutting, but few willing to be seen on the podium explaining a failure. Make sure the risk has a clear chief risk-taker. Also make sure he or she won’t be tossed to the wolves if there is a failure.

If lawmakers want public managers to take reasonable risks, they need to give them the elbow room to succeed or fail and not pounce on them if they fail. They need to accept some of Dick Hughes’ advice and regard failure as a step toward ultimate success.

That may be harder to do for the news media, but at least reporters and editors can provide a context for risk-taking and explore lessons learned, not just scapegoats to blame.

Risk-taking will always be risky. That’s why you need to do everything possible to make sure the benefits outweigh the risk and responsible risk-takers aren’t skewered for taking risks.

[This blog also appeared on the website of the company where I worked before I retired — CFM Strategic Communications.]

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.

I have reflected on this lately after someone asked me if I was embarrassed after having been a lobbyist for 25 years until I retired a few months ago.

My quick and easy was no.

Sure, with lobbyists as with any other profession, a rotten apple can spoil the barrel. The risk is that all lobbyists get a bad name.

But, in my experience in a company I co-founded about 25 years ago, lobbying has been a forthright, upright and honest profession. Let me summarize how.

First, without standing on some kind of pedestal, I would say that I never was required to engage in unethical conduct to advance the cause of my clients. The clients expected straightforward and honest conduct. My colleagues and I delivered it. The professional association of lobbyists, the Capitol Club (yes, the name could be improved), maintains a code of conduct and good lobbyists live under both the letter and spirit of that code.

I did.

To be effective, a lobbyist must retain credibility at all costs. Your word must be your word, which, if you think about it, is an appropriate aspiration for all of real life.

I and others in my firm also had the privilege of representing a host of honorable and ethical clients over the years. I was never once embarrassed to have my name associated with these clients.

That includes such superb organizations as Providence Health System, Hewlett-Packard, Harris Communications, Catholic Community Services, Youth Villages-Oregon, UnitedHealthcare, Columbia River Pilots, Oregon Winegrowers Association, Coos/Yaquina Bay Pilots, the Portland Trailblazers, Salem-Keizer Transit, the City of Salem, the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, Oregon Public Broadcasting, the Coalition of County Children and Families Commissions, the Port of Portland and many others.

On behalf of these clients, I counted it a privilege to be in the business of helping to form public policy. My clients illustrated a key principle of the business of politics, which is to be open to compromise — solutions to public policy problems somewhere in the middle, which is the where the best solutions lie anyway.

So, is lobbying a honorable profession? I answer yes and look back with fondness and pride at what “we” – my colleagues and I – were able to achieve over the years with the full support and cooperation of our clients.

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, 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.

There is a very real sense in which elected officials, caught in some kind of potentially criminal web, are guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.

That was the case with former Governor John Kitzhaber and his “first lady,” Cylvia Hayes.

Kitzhaber resigned when he lost support from his supporters among key Democrat office-holders. Due to Kitzhaber’s behavior, he also lost support from some members of the public who had recently voted him into office for fourth term. He was not in a criminal court; he was in the court of public opinion.

The fact is that Kitzhaber still has not been convicted of any crime, though the investigation of his conduct and that of Ms. Hayes is continuing. In this criminal proceeding, he is innocent until proven guilty.

To those who say the “guilty, not innocent” criterion is unfair, I say, that’s the way it is in public life. Those who run for election and win should be held to a high standard and, when they lose public support, they deserve to step aside, even though they have not had their day in an official court.

Let me add that the allegation against a public official must be something more than just an unsubstantiated attack by a political opponent. It must have more gravity, including by media reporters playing the “watchdog of the people role,” if it is to rise to the level of something that risks a political office.

A group calling itself the “Center for Public Integrity” made a media announcement recently in which it gave Oregon an “F” because, the organization maintained, “state officials and lawmakers have failed to address profound weaknesses in the public records law revealed by the allegations that forced Kitzhaber from office in February.”

Even though the organization appears, by the information on its website, to enjoy some credibility, its conclusion is way too simplistic.

Kitzhaber left office because he cashed in his own credibility. Politically, he could not survive.

It wasn’t Oregon’s public records law that did him in.   That law rests on a straightforward and simple premise: All government records are public unless they fit into one or more of the specific exemptions outlined in law (ORS 192.500). In the strongest possible terms, all attorney generals in recent memory have advised government officials to assume that records are public. Then, if exemptions apply, those records can be protected.

Examples are the home addresses of law enforcement officials because release could subject them to increased threats to their safety; information submitted to the State of Oregon by companies wanting to do business here if release could compromise trade secrets; and information about state government land acquisition interests if release could results in higher prices for the land.

In other words, even if the public records law was perfect, it could be flouted by someone who wanted to skirt its requirements.

That said, it is past time for Oregon’s public records statutes to be updated in several important ways – ways that have been advocated by two important interest groups, the Oregon Association of Broadcasters (a long-time public affairs client of the firm where I toiled for 25 years, CFM Strategic Communications) and the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association.

A few examples of what could be improved:

• Public records statutes should be updated to reflect the increased use of e-mails, as well as other forms of new technology.

• Over the years, it is possible that too many public records exemptions have been added to the law. There are more than 40 contained in ORS 192.502. Some of them have clear rationales; others don’t. They should be reviewed one-by-one.

• In addition, a large number of exemptions has been added in other places throughout Oregon statutes, which makes it hard to track them. They should be collated into the main law to make it easier to understand overall State of Oregon policy.

• However, the basic test in the public records law is worth preserving. It is the balancing test between the public’s right to know and personal privacy, with the former being the bias. It is the test on which all exemptions should be reviewed.

Oregon’s public records system does not deserve an “F.” There is room for improvement, but public officials should live under a higher law than what’s written in statutes.

They owe credibility to the public that elected them and, when they sacrifice that credibility, they should do what Kitzhaber did — resign.

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.

If you ask me, I don’t believe Hillary Clinton is qualified to run for or be president, given her checkered past.

I have been criticized on occasion for labeling her a “crook,” and, I agree, I probably should have used the word “alleged” as a modifier. For me, though, in the court of public opinion, she is guilty. Not in a criminal court yet, though at some point, she may end up there.

I reach the view on Hillary based on questions about her record as an attorney, as a First Lady, as a U.S. Senator, as U.S. Secretary of State and now as a presidential candidate. But, mainly, I rely on the ethical and leadership failures in relation to the Clinton Foundation, which she still runs with her husband, Bill.

For the following litany of what I’ll call “crookdom,” I rely on Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who has chronicled Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds in material for that newspaper.

Recently Krauthammer said he had no doubt some of the 30,000 e-mails Hillary deleted from her private e-mail server very likely had references to the Clinton Foundation.

Here, according to Krauthammer is a concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax-free international money-laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be one of the largest political criminal enterprises in U.S. history as it hides foreign money and re-packages it to be used for the Clintons’ purposes. And, what’s more, it’s all tax free.

1. You create a separate foreign “charity.” In this case, one in Canada.

2. Foreign oligarchs and governments then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did — contributing mega millions.

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.

5. The Clinton Foundation then “spends” some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10 per cent. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clintons, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world’s best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. It discovers these “clerical errors” and begins the process of re-filing five years of tax returns.

7. Net result — foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton’s pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

By the way, the Canadian “charity” includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia.

This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted.

Sarcasm aside, if you’re still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clintons, ask yourself this:

Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?

This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling.

It is what should disqualify Hillary Clinton from running for or being president.

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.

AND, THIS BLOG IS A REPRINT OF A PIECE BY A COLLEAGUE, PAGE PHILLIPS, IN MY OLD FIRM, CFM STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS. SHE CAPTURES KEY POINTS ABOUT HOW US OLD FOLKS WORK WITH A NEW GENERATION.

Working with colleagues from a different generation presents a number of communication challenges. But with a few key principles, it’s possible to bridge the generation gap in the workplace.

While working with multiple generations in the office and with clients is nothing new, the digital era constantly brings about new challenges in communication.

Baby Boomers (1946-1954) and Generation X (1965-1970) prefer emails and face-to-face communication, while Millennials (1980-2000) text and use social networks, like Twitter and Instagram, and messaging apps like Snapchat to communicate.

There seems to be a new social media tool emerging every day, and while Millennials seem to instantly understand them, older workers often feel overwhelmed. In reality, too much reliance on one method can alienate coworkers and clients, making it difficult to communicate with someone from another generation with a different preference.

There is a generational difference in formality, too. Suits have turned into jeans – and not just on casual Fridays. Abbreviated stream-of-conscious communication is replacing anguishing over a letter or email.

In many workplaces, the traditional at 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday at your desk has been replaced with telecommuting. Measuring productivity now involves judging the quality of your work product rather than how many hours it took you to do it.

So, in today’s fast changing workplace, how can coworkers from different generations work effectively with each other and their clients? Here are some tips.

1. Understand work styles.Rather than assuming your communication style is best, notice how different coworkers and clients prefer to communicate.

Does someone come to your office to talk instead of texting? Does a client respond to your phone call by email? Learn how others like to communicate and use it. If you’re not sure, just ask.

2. Share perceptions and values. You can often avoid generational conflicts by learning one another’s perceptions and values.

A Boomer may find the lack of formality and manners of a Millennial offensive, while Millennials may feel their opinions are not considered or appreciated.

3. Be willing to learn. As an older Gen Xer, I tend to dismiss the newest social media tool by telling myself “it’s a waste of time” or “ it’s just a fad, so no need to learn it.”

But don’t be fooled. Older workers should always be willing to learn new communication tools since they will need them when working with younger clients. Don’t be afraid to ask the younger workers in the office for help.

The opposite is true for younger workers. Abbreviations and short, incomplete thoughts are fine between friends, but that’s not a good way to communicate with clients. Learning how to write well is a trans-generational necessity, so be willing to learn from others on what makes a good writer.

4. Realize the strength in all generations. The best communicators are comfortable with all generations of communication tools, and they aren’t afraid to try out new ones. Since most clients will be multi-generational, valuing the strengths of each generation’s communication style guarantees the best value to one’s client – and a more cohesive workplace.