Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

When we know a Member of Congress has practiced well the art of middle-of-the-road politics – a lost art today – we should generate compliments for that member.

Columnist George Will did just that a couple days ago when he profiled retired Tennessee U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander.

I do, too.

Rather than just oppose over-the-top politics, we ought to commend those who play the game well.

Under this headline – “A welcome break from today’s repulsive, glue-factory politics” – Wills wrote this:  “Lamar Alexander’s new memoir of life in the Senate reveals a craftsman of politics and conservatism.”

Kudos to Alexander and Wills for providing an example of good politics during a time when see the exact reverse as Congress and the president fight with each other every day as if the goal is always winning rather than developing solid policy.

Here is how Wills started his column:

“In the mid-1940s, 4-year-old Lamar Alexander climbed a tree, fretted that he could not climb down, and called for his mother to help.  This was before the noun ‘parent’ became a verb, and before advanced thinkers decided that parenting is a science, or an art, or both.  So, his mother simply told him, ‘You got yourself up there, you can get yourself down.’ He did.

“He graduated from his free-range Tennessee childhood with a stock of gumption that propelled him through a public life spanning almost a quarter of the nation’s life, working with 10 presidents.  His career’s astonishing breadth began in 1963 as a staff member in Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy’s Justice Department.  Alexander, now 85, was a White House aide to President Richard Nixon, two-term governor of Tennessee, president of the University of Tennessee, education secretary under President George H.W. Bush, and a three-term U.S. senator.”

Alexander’s memoir, “The Education of a Senator:  From JFK to Trump,” tells the story of many achievements and a few disappointments, including two times when Alexander failed to win Republican presidential nominations.

With attribution to Wills, here are a few highlights about Alexander.

• Alexander’s “graceful but unembellished prose suits his penchant for understatement.” 
• The placidity of Alexander’s memoir is disturbed only by his immoderate dislike of the adjective “moderate” when applied to him.  He always detested the label because it could have implied he had a lazy streak.
• Alexander illustrated a key point in politics, at least in the past:  A functioning legislature includes negotiation and compromise.  They are inescapable.  Principles must be moderated to accommodate the inconvenient existence of others elected espousing different philosophies.
• Politics is neither a science nor an art.  It is a craft like carpentry. The dignity of a craft derives from the fact that it is acquired only through many years of repetitions.  Hence patience is a conservative virtue. Faux conservatives who proclaim on the Senate floor their principled refusal to compromise often achieve their only intended result:  Cable television and social media resonance.

More from Wills:

“Alexander’s political craftsmanship was honed during almost six decades of a public career whose diversity of offices filled is perhaps unmatched in American history.  Of the 2,019 people who have been senators, few earned as much respect as Alexander, and like Ted Williams, he homered in this last at bat.

“Near the end of his Senate tenure, he and two other senators met in the White House Roosevelt Room to try to persuade the mercurial president [guess who…yes, Donald Trump] to pressure some of his Senate acolytes to support a major bill, the Great American Outdoors Act.  Pointing to a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt, one of Alexander’s colleagues said to Trump:  ‘If you support and sign this law, you’ll be the greatest conservationist president since Teddy Roosevelt.’

“Trump leaned back, folded his arms, and looked into space.  ‘Wouldn’t you say ever?’ Trump asked.”

As for today, in retirement, Alexander is currently on a media and book tour promoting his memoir.  Plus, he is actively participating in interviews to discuss his six decades in public life and his experiences working with all of those 10 different presidents.

These days, we need more Alexanders.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I ask the question in this blog headline for a variety of reasons, but the main one can be described in just one word:  Technology.

Google says this:

“Technology is deeply integrated into daily life.  Today, there are more active mobile connections than there are people on Earth.  Driven by smartphones and the Internet of Things, global connectivity has re-shaped everything from how we communicate and to how we access education, healthcare, and financial services.”

Just imagine where we would be without it.  Some bad.  Some good.

For me, I try to avoid falling too far into the technology abyss, so:

• I am a dedicated e-mail user.  I remember when this ability first emerged.  I was a lobbyist at the Capitol in Salem, Oregon, and it made my professional life much easier, not to mention quicker.

• I am still adjusting to today’s major communication method:  Texting.  Younger persons in my life use this a lot and I – well – I am trying.  In some cases, I make a phone call to a family member and he or she doesn’t answer.  Then, I text and he or she calls back immediately.  Who knows?

• As a now-retired journalist, I loved to read newspapers in my hands, getting fingers ink-dirty.  Now, I confess that I read several newspapers on-line – the Oregonian, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.  So, I am turning my back on my youth.

In all of this, I worry that technology will spark fewer in-person friendships, not a good thing.

To avoid this, I try to keep personal friendships alive, often, but not always, on the golf course.  Personal contact matters, even in a technology world.

And, speaking of technology, a recent episode for me indicated how far I have descended into yes, the abyss. 

As we changed cell service providers, I was told all my information on my old phone would be transported into my new one.  Well, not quite.

What didn’t transfer was the ability to receive e-mail messages on my new phone, which appeared to be the result of Microsoft’s conservative transport policy.  So, now I need professional help to accomplish the objective.

Or, I suppose I could ask my grandchildren for help!

Technology rules – whether we want it to or not.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Here’s another quick look at the governor’s election race in Oregon.

The only fact I know for sure in the Oregon gubernatorial race is who is running against whom.

It will be a repeat of the last time around:

• The current Democrat Governor Tina Kotek is running for re-election, hoping her first four years in the job will produce a second term.

• Her opponent, as was the case four years ago, will be current Oregon senator, Republican Christine Drazan.

Will things be different this time around?  Will a Republican win for the first time in Oregon in more than 40 years?

The best answer now:  Perhaps.

And, to Republicans, hoping for a re-set in Oregon, that is the best answer they’ve had in years.

Why?

A few reasons.

• First, Kotek won a lot of debits among voters because she supported a major gas tax increase and other transportation funding measures in the last Legislature.  Opponents gained referral to the primary election and the measure went down like a stone.  It’s possible Kotek could pay a price for her support.

• Second, Kotek has faced a number of problems in state agencies, such as, for example, in the Department of Human Services which handles foster care management.  The agency has dramatically failed and, while state agency problems don’t translate easily to the campaign trail, foster care could be different.

• Third, it was a surprise a few weeks ago when a major public employee union, the Oregon Education Association (OEA), turned its back on Kotek and declined to endorse in the race.  Bad news for Kotek, but it is tough to tell if the lack of the endorsement will mean OEA members won’t vote for her.  It could mean loss of campaign dollars.

• Fourth, I don’t pay much attention to national polls on how 50 governors are doing in their states – who knows how such polls are done – but, for what it’s worth, Kotek has pulled a very low rating.  No doubt Republicans will try to capitalize on that standing.

Over the last 40 years or so, Republicans have not been able to gather enough votes in urban Oregon to win statewide elective offices, including for governor.  Democrats almost always control urban outcomes.

That was the case in 2010 when the Republican candidate then, Chris Dudley, won 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties, but lost urban Oregon to Democrat John Kitzhaber who turned that strength into re-election.

Plus, this time around, the Republican primary victor, Drazan, will have to decide how to deal with the impact of Donald Trump in Oregon.  It is likely Drazan will try mostly to avoid Trump, but we can expect Kotek and her allies to set out to tie Drazan directly to the unpopular U.S. president.

So, for now, months before the election, Democrats hope to hold their dynasty in Oregon while Republicans hope it’s time for a change.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

…..Part Two:  Defeating an Autocrat……

If, like me, you stand around wondering what you can do as an individual to oppose Donald Trump’s intention to become an autocrat – in other words, a supreme leader, much like a God — then read this.

It comes from something called Raw America.  Based at least in part on a column by M. Gessen in the New York Times, it chronicles how voters in Hungary outsmarted the would-be autocrat there, Victor Orban.

Could this be an example of what could be done in America to defeat Trump?  Perhaps.

There is no better approach today than to repeat the Raw America story as part two of my blogs on defeating Trump.  It is not necessary at the start to add any words from me, though I will at the conclusion of this blog.

*********

This week the New York Times ran a remarkable piece by M. Gessen from Budapest, reporting on the inauguration of Peter Magyar, the man who just did what almost no one in our era has managed to do.  He beat an entrenched autocrat at the ballot box and won decisively enough to start undoing the damage.

For 16 years, Viktor Orban ran Hungary the way Trump dreams of running America.  He dominated the media, re-wrote election laws to favor his own party, and built what observers called a “mafia state.”  He’d seemingly achieved what political theorists call “autocratic breakthrough,” the point past which you supposedly can’t vote a strongman out.

Some group held conventions in Hungary to study his methods.  J.D. Vance flew to Budapest to campaign for him.  And then Hungarians handed the opposition not just a win, but a constitutional majority.

Magyar didn’t build another “machine of power.”  He built an army of ordinary people:  2,000 local organizing hubs, tens of thousands of volunteers, thousands more working phones in the final week.  He traveled to 700 towns and villages, holding five rallies a day, because it turns out that people seeing a candidate in person, again and again, is a powerful antidote to media fearmongering.  When you can’t out-shout the propaganda machine, you go around it, mailbox to mailbox.

Magyar refused to mince words.  Where earlier opposition figures called Orban’s government “corrupt,” Magyar called it a criminal enterprise.  He ran on cleaning it up.  Post-election polling showed corruption, not the economy, was the number one reason voters turned on Orban.

People were moved by moral outrage.  By the sense that something precious was being stolen from the nation itself.  Sound familiar?  And the grassroots that powered the win weren’t political operations at all.  They were teachers, parents fighting for kids in state care, Pride organizers, ordinary people who’d been fighting their own fights.  In our context, Gessen notes, that’s the No Kings rallies, the ICE-resistance networks, and the people already in motion in your own town.

There’s one more lesson that matches our moment.  Magyar’s rise began when he exposed a child sexual abuse scandal that Orban’s government had tried to bury.  In Poland — the only other European country to claw back its democracy this way — a similar cover-up played a central role.  There’s something about these stories that shows people exactly what unaccountable power does behind closed doors.

Jeffrey Epstein is our version of this scandal.

Magyar didn’t win by being crueler or more vulgar than the man he beat (the way, say, Gavin Newsom sometimes tries to out-troll Trump on his own terms).  He won by being aspirational.  At his inauguration he invited a choir of Roma children, Hungary’s most discriminated-against minority, to sing in Parliament.  Grown legislators wept.

He told the people who’d voted against him that the country belonged to them too.  That there was “no left, no right, only Hungarians.”  He raised the European flag back over Parliament but kept a nationalist flag flying beside it, because his message was that this was everyone’s country now.

When the new prime minister finally walked out to the crowd, people were so desperate to close the distance that men hiked up their pants and went splashing straight across the reflecting pool the old regime had built to keep them away.

“This is your house now!” Magyar shouted.

I think we forget, in the grind of bad news, that elections are winnable.  That a democratic America is still in the fight.

An autocrat who looked permanent, who had every institutional advantage, who had the world’s illiberal movement cheering him on, lost.  Enough ordinary people refused to accept that he couldn’t be beaten and then organized like they believed it.

We are not powerless.  We’ve never been powerless.  The machine wants us to feel that way, because despair is what keeps it standing.

*********

A conclusion from me.  So, there is something we can do.  Join others to bring a budding autocrat – Trump – down and reclaims positive parts of our country.

……….Part One………

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I have been reflecting lately on the context behind this blog headline.

Donald Trump is not involved in politics as we have known about the subject in the past.

He is involved in his own little world where he and his family get what they want during his second presidency.

So, here is a list of what Trump is not.

• He is not a follower of rules.  They don’t matter to him.  He makes his own.

• He does not follow what Courts may say.  Their rulings do’t matter to him, so he violates them orders repeatedly.

• He does not follow what his staff may say to him.  He doesn’t ask for advice or listen.

• He doesn’t care what Congress may say doesn’t matter to him.  He avoids the institution at all costs unless its members bow before him.

• He is not a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent in the traditional definitions of those titles.  He is a narcissist.

So, with all this, it is hard to rate Trump on any normal political scale.  IT is true that many of his MAGA followers are departing from him, given how much damage he has done to the country, including at the gas pump. 

The fact that he doesn’t care about his followers or anyone else.  Just himself.

So, the question is whether we can tolerate two more years of Trump’s abhorrent behavior on the way to becoming an autocrat. 

Part Two will be a summary of what one country – Hungary – did to oust it’s own autocrat.  With effort and commitment, the approach could be replicated in the United States to get rid of Trump.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Donald Trump has often proclaimed himself as the best deal-maker in history.

That’s his reality.

Accuracy tells a different story.

His deal-making falls short for three reasons:

• First, he is unprepared.

He never bones up before starting a deal. He also never relies on confidants who may know more than he does before he runs amuck.

• Second, he is mercurial.

That’s a not-often-used word, but it means this:  Describes someone whose mood or behavior is highly unpredictable and liable to change rapidly.  Sounds like Trump, right? 

• Third, Trump often is desperate for a deal and everyone knows it.

Desperation breeds negative results.

The Atlantic Magazine wrote about this in the last week and included this summary of the deal Trump says he is trying to strike to end the Iran war he started without a rationale for doing so, nor an attempt to convince Congress to go along with his escapade for which we are all paying a high price. 

Trump’s war has cost American lives, roiled the economy with sky-high gas prices, and given Republicans who support Trump a lot to consider.

Writing in Atlantic Magazine, here is how columnist David Graham described Trump’s record:

“Donald Trump’s reputation and political career were built on his deal-making prowess, yet the president keeps demonstrating that he is a terrible negotiator.

“Repeatedly over the past nine years, Trump has gotten rolled by counterparts during high-stakes exchanges.  North Korea, Russia, Russia again, China, and China again have gotten the better of the United States.

“Trump has had to slink back to Washington without much to show except empty talk about friendship with whatever dictator has just run circles around him.”

Of course, then Graham goes on to point out what he calls “one glaring exception” to Trump’s self-proclaimed deal-making credentials.  It came when he was negotiated with himself to get his own administration to set up a $1.8 billion slush fund for his political allies.  [As this written, Trump’s fund in legal scrutiny in court.]

To Trump, that’s a win.  For Americans, it’s an incredible abuse.

Graham adds this conclusion:

“… these factors combine to mean that Trump is ill-equipped to win any negotiation, much less one that is the result of his own blundering into war.  Trump is likely to muddle through, as he has so many times in his career, and reach some sort of agreement with Iran.  He will surely say that it’s a great triumph, but reality will be harder to ignore than it was when Trump’s failures merely hurt his own bank accounts.

“One of the ironies of The Art of the Deal, the book that made Trump’s reputation as a clever businessman, is that Trump himself didn’t write it. His ghostwriter, Tony Schwartz, has said that he cobbled the volume together after sitting at Trump’s elbow while he conducted his daily business.  

“Unfortunately, it’s probably too late for Trump to hire a real professional to handle negotiations with Iran.”

So, deal-maker?  No.

Self-dealing?  Yes.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

In the past, my best quote was attributed to General Colin Powell when he said he would not run for president.  The reason:

“He bemoaned the loss of civility in politics.”

But, then, today, I stumbled across a contender for my “best quote accolade.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, it came from President Ronald Reagan.  In 1986, he said this:

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:  If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

In only a few words, Reagan, the wordsmith, made a great point.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Here’s another quick look at the governor’s election race in Oregon.

The only fact I know for sure in the race in Oregon who is running against whom.

It will be a repeat of the last time around:

• The current Democrat Governor Tina Kotek is running for re-election, hoping her first four years in the job will produce a second term.

• Her opponent, as was the case four years ago, will be current Oregon senator, Republican Christine Drazan.

Will things be different this time around?  Will a Republican win for the first time in Oregon in more than 40 years?

The best answer now:  Perhaps.

And, to Republicans, hoping for a re-set in Oregon, that is the best answer they’ve had in years.

Why?

A couple reasons.

First, Kotek won a lot of debits among voters because she supported a major gas tax and other transportation funding measures in the last Legislature.  Opponents gained referral to the primary election ballot and the measure went down like a stone.

It’s possible Kotek could pay a price for her support.

Second, Kotek has faced a number of problems in state agencies, such as, for example, in the Department of Human Resources which handles foster care management.  The agency has dramatically failed and, while state agency problems don’t translate easily to the campaign trail, foster care could be different.

Third, I don’t pay much attention to national polls on how 50 governors are doing in their states – who knows how such polls are done – but, for what it’s worth, Kotek has pulled a very low rating.  No doubt Republicans will try to capitalize on that standing.

Over the last 40 years or so, Republicans have not been able to gather enough votes in urban Oregon to win statewide elective offices, including governor.  Democrats almost always control urban outcomes.

That was the case in 2010 when the Republican candidate then, Chris Dudley, won 29 of Oregon’s 36 counties, but lost urban Oregon to Democrat John Kitzhaber who turned that strength into re-election.

Plus, this time around, the Republican primary victor, Drazan, will have to decide how to deal with the impact of Donald Trump in Oregon.  It is likely Drazan will try mostly to avoid Trump, but we can expect Kotek and her allies to tie Drazan directly to the U.S. president.

So, for now, months before the election, Democrats hope to hold their dynasty in Oregon while Republicans hope it’s time for a change.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

The answer to the question in this blog headline could be “yes.”

That’s the contention of a writer, Cleve Woodson, Jr., whose work appeared in the Washington Post under this headline:  “Repeated violence puts spotlight on divisive political speech.”

Here is how his column started:

“Scholars who study rhetoric and extremism say the country’s political language has grown more aggressive and can trigger violent acts.

“For years, President Donald Trump has relied on insults, menace and combative political language as central features of his public persona — portraying opponents as enemies, critics as threats and political fights as existential battles for the country’s survival.

“After multiple assassination attempts against Trump and amid a broader rise in threats against public officials, scholars of political violence are debating whether incendiary rhetoric from political leaders makes real-world violence more likely.”

From me, two points:

First, I love words, so using divisive ones always strikes me as counterproductive.  It only results in what characterizes politics these days – contention, division, derision, and a win-at-all-costs mentality.

Second, divisive speech doesn’t contribute much, if anything, to what I long for in politics – the ability to see and land on the middle ground, which is where the best solutions to pressing public policy problems lie in the first place.

More from Wootson:

“Presidents and the White House have long been the focus of people driven by political grievances, personal instability or emotional volatility. But scholars who study political rhetoric and extremism say the country’s increasingly aggressive political language can make that more likely, even in cases where the perpetrator lacks an ideological motive.

“’The tone from the top models expected behavior,’ said Helio Fred Garcia, a professor of leadership at New York University and ‘Columbia University who has written a book on Trump’s political rhetoric.  ‘If you create conditions where hate and violence become more acceptable, people are going to act on that.  Sometimes it will be supporters.  Sometimes it will be opponents.”

Is Trump at fault for the descent into words abyss?

I say yes, though he is not alone.

Trump’s defenders say Democrats and the media unfairly pin the blame for political violence on the president and overlook the corrosive rhetoric of his political opponents.

Trump’s critics point to the president’s own record of harsh and aggressive speech.  His no-holds-barred approach has been central to his political identity since he first entered national politics, and it has intensified during his second term.  A Washington Post analysis found that Trump’s use of vulgar language, personal insults and self-aggrandizing rhetoric has increased markedly since his first term.  

Critics have pointed to the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol as the clearest example of incendiary political rhetoric with violent, real-world consequences.  Trump painted his Democrat opponents as illegitimate usurpers and urged supporters to come to Washington on January 6 for a gathering that ‘will be wild.’

Before the mob stormed the Capitol, Trump encouraged his supporters to ‘fight like hell’ to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory.

My bottom lines:

• Listen more than you talk, including in politics, which, if it occurred, would stand normal politics today on its head.

• Strive to use words that don’t send antagonistic messages.

Too much?  Perhaps.  But worth a try.  Both in life and in politics.

Perspective from the 19^th Hole 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 as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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 could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

If I was going to write about something over the recent Memorial Day Weekend, it could have about those who gave their lives to defend the country I live, the United States of America.

But, even as offer supreme value for those deaths, my mind turns to one Donald Trump.

If you want to know the definition of corruption, just look at Trump.  You would see more than you want to see.

Now, about two years into Trump’s second term, you could have thought you had seen all the self-dealing you could tolerate from a president who looks after himself and the cronies who bow to him.

Then, no.

You see what New York Times editorial writers saw when they wrote under this headline:  “There Has Never Been an Example of Presidential Corruption Like This.”

Here is how the editorial started:

“Has there ever been an episode of presidential corruption so blatant and threatening to constitutional order?  Certainly not in modern times.

“President Trump’s Justice Department is using taxpayer money to create a $1.8 billion political slush fund.  Ostensibly set up to compensate those who the department claims have ‘suffered weaponization and lawfare,’ it will in fact reward loyalists willing to defy the law and commit violence on behalf of the president.”

The Times says the fund combines three of Trump’s most alarming traits:

• One, it is an obvious form of corruption coming from a president who has used his office to enrich himself, his family, and his allies.
• Two, the fund continues his pattern of using the Justice Department as an enforcer to punish his perceived opponents and protect his friends and allies.
• Three, the fund is his latest attempt to re-write history about the 2020 election and the January 6, 2021, attack on Congress.

This further comment from the Times:

“It is worth pausing to put the fund into the larger context of Trump’s political project:  He is destroying pillars of American democracy to empower himself.  He claims elections are legitimate only if he wins.  He uses federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute his perceived enemies.  He purges his party of officials who defy him.  He describes members of the other party and civil society as traitors and enemies.  He incentivizes his supporters to break the law on his behalf and rewards them when they do.  He directs his allies to change election rules to keep his party in power.”

How did Trump think of doing this?

Well, he told the IRS what to do and, remember, he controls the IRS.  He instructed the agency to negotiate a resolution to a suit he filed contending that his tax returns had been released unfairly.

He negotiates with himself and you could predict the result:  He wins.

For Trump’s supporters, the handouts will come from the slush fund.  The Justice Department will tap a permanent stream of revenue that Congress created in 1956, known as the Judgment Fund, to settle lawsuits against the federal government.  Now, this fund will reward those who committed acts of aggression against the government in 2021.

So, this conclusion from the Times:

“Americans should be cleareyed about what the president is doing.  He is taking their money and showering it on criminals.” 

Including on himself, for he is a felon.

An essayist in the Times put it this way:

“The president may wish to be considered in the same class as Napoleon or Alexander the Great, but he is in danger of turning himself into the next Mobutu Sese Seko or Suharto:  A kleptocrat remembered not for his ideas and not for his power, but for his greed.”