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 decided to devote my next two blogs to posting excerpts from excellent columns written by Nicholas Kristof for the New York Times.

Remember him?  With Oregon connections, including owning property in Yamhill County, Kristof filed to run for governor on the Democrat side here the last time around.  However, courts ruled that he could not do so because he had not established “residency.”

I wish he would have been allowed to run, given his experience and perspective.

But, Kristof went back to doing what he did so well before and now does again, which is to write columns for the Times.

This time, one of his columns provided insights in how it is possible to oppose an autocrat like Donald Trump.  Excerpts appear below.

In a second column, Kristof wrote about a fact he contends exists – Trump is so corrupt that he is vulnerable.  That will be part two for me.

So, here’s part one, which appeared under this headline:  Three Well-Tested Ways to Undermine an Autocrat. Kristof started his column this way:

“The question I get most often is:  What can we do to take our country back?

“So let me try to answer, drawing on lessons from other countries that have faced authoritarian challenges.

“The funny thing is that there’s a playbook for overturning autocrats.  It was written here in America, by a rumpled political scientist I knew named Gene Sharp.  While little known in the United States before his death in 2018, he was celebrated abroad, and his tool kit was used by activists in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East, and across Asia.

“His books, emphasizing non-violent protests that become contagious, have been translated into at least 34 languages.

“’Dictators are never as strong as they tell you they are,’ Sharp once said, ‘and people are never as weak as they think they are.’”

Kristof reports three examples of ways to oppose autocracy.

1. The first is mockery and humor — preferably salacious.

Humor, Kristof writes, puts autocrats in a difficult position.  They look ridiculous if they crack down on jokes but look weak if they ignore them.

• A second approach that has often succeeded is emphasizing not democracy as such but rather highlighting the leaders’ corruption, hypocrisy, and economic mismanagement.

Kristof writes:  “Critics usually have plenty of ammunition when pointing to hypocrisy, for authoritarians tend to preen as moral guardians while the lack of accountability often leads to lapses.  One example:  The police chief in Tehran, who was in charge of enforcing the Islamic dress code for women, was reportedly found naked in a brothel with six equally naked prostitutes.

“Corruption is also usually an easy target, because as autocrats become increasingly powerful, they and their family members often decide to enrich themselves:  Wherever there is authoritarianism, there is corruption.”

Think Trump because one of his main goals is to accumulate personal wealth at the expense of Americans and America.

• The third approach that has often succeeded is focusing on the power of one — an individual tragedy rather than a sea of oppression.  Protesters against apartheid used to employ the slogan, “Free South African political prisoners,” but that never got much traction.  Then they switched to “Free Nelson Mandela,” and we know the rest.

Kristof’s conclusion:  “There’s no simple formula for challenging authoritarianism.  But these approaches have enjoyed a measure of success abroad and may be ones we Americans could learn from.”

So, good words.  And, tomorrow, I’ll post Kristof’s thoughts on Trump’s vulnerability.

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 Free Clinic in Salem, Oregon, now about 20 years old, is one of the places these days where my wife and I have decided to devote our charity dollars.

Why?

Well, two reasons.

• First, we are trying to focus on the good work of the Free Clinic and others because that’s better than focusing on the damage Donald Trump and his minions are doing to the country’s safety net.

• Second, the Free Clinic does great work with low-income citizens in our area who, otherwise, may not have access to any health care services.

Consider these statistics from 2024:

• The Clinic hosted 6,559 patients for medical visits, with no obligation to pay anything.

• The Clinic provided 2,310 hours of free counseling services.

• The Clinic provided 588 free dental appointments.

• The Clinic found a way to receive free medications and dispense them to patients.

How did all this occur?

Well, the Clinic has more than 200 volunteers – doctors, nurses, dentists, counselors – to provide these free services.  And many of them know how to access such resources as medications.

This is a piece of good news in Salem, Oregon.  The idea for the Free Clinic started at the church my wife and I have attended for more than 30 years.  But, beyond our church, volunteers now come from many other Salem churches, indicating that churches can put “hands and feet to the Gospel” if they work together.

The issue is not about getting credit.  The issue is doing “good work.”

At a time when charity dollars are trying up from the federal government, organizations like the Free Clinic are even more important.

So, we will continue supporting it as, if nothing else, a worthy endeavor.  But beyond worthiness, the Clinic allows those of who support it to express God’s love for all people – ALL people.

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 used to say that he could fix anything.

• He could end the war between the Ukraine and Russia.

According to the Washington Post Fact Checker column:  “Over and over during the presidential campaign, Trump pledged to end the three-year war between Russia and Ukraine — which began when Russia invaded its neighbor. He made it seem easy — ‘within 24 hours’ — and repeated that claim in many campaign rallies.”

The fact:  The war is still going on and Trump has never admitted that he has failed to fulfill his promise to end it.

• He could hold down prices in the United States.

Trump’s pet program – impose tariffs all over the place – only means that prices will rise across-the board. 

The fact:  Of course, he’ll never admit the effect of “his” tariffs.

• He could…well, you get the picture.

As reported by Atlantic Magazine, something has changed in the way Trump and his minions are now justifying their actions.  It boils down to this pat phrase:  “I don’t know.”

Which is a travesty because they should know.

Examples from national media:

• On Capitol Hill, Senator Dick Durbin quizzed Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on cuts to research on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, reading off a list of terminated employees and grants.  “I do not know about any cuts to ALS research, and I’m happy to —” Kennedy started, though Durbin stopped him and said he ought to know.
• In a Senate hearing on confirmation of former Representative Billy Long to lead the IRS, Senator Elizabeth Warren asked the nominee whether it’s legal for the president to direct the IRS to revoke an organization’s non-profit status.  Yet, even with time to check the statute’s language in front of him, Long deflected:  “I’m not able to answer the question.”
• In Boston, Justice Department lawyers were struggling to answer questions from Federal Judge Brian E. Murphy, who hurriedly convened a hearing after claims by lawyers that the administration put several people, including a Vietnamese man, aboard a plane for deportation to war-ravaged South Sudan, in possible defiance of a judicial order.  “Where is the plane?” Murphy asked, according to The New York Times. 

“I’m told that information is classified, and I am told that the final destination is also classified,” a DOJ lawyer said.  Murphy wanted to know under what authority the government was classifying the flight’s location.  The attorney replied — you guessed it — “I don’t have the answer to that.”

• Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem might have been better off pleading ignorance.  Instead, she confidently and incorrectly told Senator Maggie Hassan that “habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.”  Though she thought she knew, she didn’t know anything.

From the New York Times:  “In their unawareness, these officials are taking their lead from the president. Trump once promised, “I alone can fix it,” but now he has a different message:  I have no idea, as illustrated by:

• Is his administration deporting people to Libya?  Trump answers:  “I don’t know.  You’ll have to ask Homeland Security.”
• Why did Trump choose Casey Means to be surgeon general, even though she didn’t finish her medical residency?   Trump said:  “Bobby Kennedy really thought she was great.  I don’t know her.”
• Why did Trump’s Truth Social account post an image of him dressed as the Pope, ahead of the conclave?  “That’s not me that did it.  I have no idea where it came from — maybe it was AI.  But I know nothing about it.”
• Had Trump been briefed on U.S. soldiers missing during an exercise in Lithuania?  He said, “No, I haven’t.”
• Would Trump direct his administration to provide any evidence that the graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk, who was snatched off the street by plainclothes ICE officers, was connected to Hamas?  He said, “I’ll look into it, but I’m not aware of the particular event.”
• Why did Trump sign a proclamation authorizing his administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants?  He said, “I don’t know when it was signed, because I didn’t sign it.  Other people handled it.” (Trump did, in fact, sign it.)
• Given this pattern, it’s little surprise that when NBC’s Kristen Welker asked Trump, “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” he had a less-than-reassuring answer:  “I don’t know.”

So, I guess the point is that Trump is watching from the sidelines and not doing anything.  Or, at least, he doesn’t know what he and his minions are doing.

If they have just a moment, I’ll tell them.

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.

PEW Research asked the question that I used for this blog headline.  And it raised a long-ago memory for me.

What is news?

There is no pat or magic answer.

When I lived in Washington, D.C. to work for an Oregon congressman, I returned home on a weekend for a job interview at the Oregon Department of Human Resources in Salem, Oregon, which, at that time, included the Division of Corrections.  That title meant the state’s prison and parole system.

The director of that Division, Bob Watson, was part of the interview process and asked me a good question – “what is news.”

For me, it was a reminder back even farther when I worked as a reporter for the Daily Astorian newspaper in Astoria, Oregon.  There, I covered “news.”

When Bob asked me the question, I cannot remember how I answered.

But, today, what I would say is this:  News is what reporters and editors think it is.  Nothing more.

If a news editor for a newspaper or television station thinks something is news, they’ll cover it.  If they don’t, they won’t.

In the New York Times, several reporters told the PEW Research story, which started this way:

“Measuring people’s news habits and attitudes has long been a key part of Pew Research Center’s efforts to understand American society.  Surveys regularly ask Americans how closely they are following the news, where they get their news, and how much they trust the news they see.

“But as people are exposed to more information from more sources than ever before and lines blur between entertainment, commentary, and other types of content, these questions are not as straightforward as they once were.”

The Times story continues:

“Before the rise of digital and social media, researchers had long approached the question of what news is from the journalist perspective.  Ideas of news were often tied to the institution of journalism, and journalists defined news and determined what was newsworthy.

“News considered information produced and packaged within news organizations for a passive audience, with emphasis (particularly in the United States) placed on a particular tone, a set of values, and the idea of journalism playing a civic role in promoting an informed public.”

Now, according to the Times, the PEW analysis focuses on the basis of what an audience sees. Thus, the concept of news is not necessarily tied to professional journalism.  Audiences, rather than journalists, determine what is news.

PEW puts it this way:

“…the power to define news has largely shifted from media gatekeepers to the general public.  And discussions with everyday Americans confirm the idea that its definition varies greatly from person to person, with each bringing their own mindset and approach to navigating a dizzying information environment.

“These perceptions are consequential because news – regardless of what people consider it to be – remains a consistent part of most Americans’ lives today.  About three-quarters of U.S. adults say they follow the news at least some of the time, and 44 per cent say they intentionally seek out news extremely often or often.”

Here is a summary of key findings from PEW

• Defining news has become a personal, and personalized, experience.
• Most people agree that information must be factual, up to date and important to society to be considered news.
• “Hard news” stories about politics and war continue to be what people most clearly think of as news.
• There are also consistent views on what news is not.  (People make clear distinctions between news versus entertainment and news versus opinion.)
• At the same time, views of news as not being “biased” or “opinionated” can conflict with people’s actual behaviors and preferences.
• People don’t always like news, but they say they need it. 
• People’s emotions about news are at times tied to broader feelings of media distrust, or specific events going on at that time – perhaps in combination with individuals’ political identities.

So, for me, the definition of “news” remains a simple one.  It is what reporters and editors – as well as those who write for social media outlets, even ones they create — believe it is. 

And the result is that, unless we happen to have the skill or time to research issues ourselves, the news – call it information – we consume, affects how we look at society, including government.

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.

This is one of five departments I run with a free hand to manage as I see fit.  Because, you see, I report to myself and to no one else.

Which means I’m like Donald Trump.  I only have to answer to myself, no one else.

So, hereby, I open the Department of Bits and Pieces.

VICE PRESIDENT VANCE AND THE NEW POPE:  News broke this week that U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance was setting out to establish a relationship with the new Pope, Pope Leo.

If I was the new Pope, I would not schedule Vance for a meeting.  Remember, the last time Vance with a Pope — Pope Francis — the Pope died!

So, I say to Pope Leo, move on with your priority to emphasize the importance of pastoral care, even though Vance would not know the meaning of that term.

CABINET SECRETARY BOTCHES THE DEFINTION OF HABEAS CORPUS:  As reported by national publications Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem mangled a response to a question about habeas corpus at a Senate hearing Tuesday, referring to the constitutional right of due process as a “right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.”

New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan asked Noem about the constitutional protection after noting that White House adviser Stephen Miller told reporters earlier this month that the administration was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus, the right to challenge an arrest or imprisonment.

“I want to clarify your position,” Hassan asked. “What is habeas corpus?”

“Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to … ,” Noem responded before she was cut off by Hassan.

“That’s incorrect,” the senator said.

“Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason,” Hassan said, calling it a “foundational right.”

Well, no surprise here.  On this and most other issues, Noem is like most other appointments by Donald Trump.  She has no idea what she is doing or saying, unless its obedience to Trump – and unless she wants to shoot her dog again as she vowed she could do a few months ago.

A MILITARY PARADE FOR GUESS WHO – TRUMP!  No surprise here – he wants a military parade for himself, which probably illustrates his “I want to be Putin” instinct.

Guess what?  The parade will cost in the range of $45 million.

There are far better uses for this federal money.

Plus, as I read Psalm 33 in the Bible this morning, I came across a verse that applies to Trump and other military-minded leaders in our world: 

“No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength.”

So, I wish Trump would read the Bible, instead of Mein Kampf.

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.

As my wife and I walked into our regular 8 a.m. church service last Sunday here in Salem, Oregon, we were thrilled by what we saw.

Up front on the platform stood about 30 refugees who now live here after arriving, often under duress from several foreign locations over the last few years.

The group led in music, singing in a variety of different languages – including a few dialects we had never heard of before.  They did so with enthusiasm and gusto.  And, just so you know, English was included.

For my wife and me, as Christians, what we saw was an expression of what heaven will be like some day – all kinds of people, all kinds of nationalities, all kinds of ages, all kinds of colors…all children of God.

The group up front Sunday is called “Baraka,” a word that means “blessing” in various languages. 

To use a phrase from Baraka’s website:  “It is a ministry of Salem Alliance Church that exists to bless our global neighbors with God’s love through long-term practical, social, and spiritual support.”

But, to me, it is far more than just that sentence.

It is an example of how we can have respect for and love people who are different from us, thus illustrating that God’s love transcends borders and nationalities and every other factor that often separates, not unites.

Baraka programs, which my wife and I support, include English language teaching, immigration legal services help, workforce training, and others.

Consider these statistics:

• More than 1,000 refugees have located in and around Salem in recent years, so this issue is not just one that resides in larger cities – it is in “our neighborhoods.”

• More than 12 languages are spoken by these refugees.

• More than 250 volunteers help to provide needed services.

Doug and Anya Holcomb lead the Baraka program – Doug often leading music as he sings in multiple languages and Anya delivering sermons on the importance of love for all people.  They are both children of missionaries, but were able to learn that they didn’t have to go overseas to serve as missionaries – they do so right here in Salem, Oregon.

On Sunday, Anya used these Bible verses as her text for a message that focused on unity that only God can spur – John 17:20-23:

In these verses, Christ says:  “My prayer is not for them alone.  I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.  May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one — I in them and you in me — so that they may be brought to complete unity.  Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

To close, two thoughts from me:

• God loves everyone, as I wrote earlier, a foretaste of what heaven will be like when we get there.
• I wish Donald Trump would have heard what we heard Sunday so he wouldn’t label all immigrants/refugees as criminals.  It might change his priorities, though I doubt it (and, I add, the good news was that politics was not involved Sunday — and it should not have been in our church).

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.

At least two views have emerged on the controversy over how much money to put into Medicaid, the program that serves health care needs of the country’s low-income population. 

As always, perhaps more than two.

• One view came from Dr. John Kitzhaber, the former governor in Oregon, who, when he held public office, made health care policy his top priority.  He was very innovative then; and now he still deals with health care policy from that vantage.
• The other view came from U.S. House Republicans in a proposal that focused on cuts, not reform – and it appears to have a chance to pass the House, though as I write this, the fate in the House is unclear.

Kitzhaber’s proposals make sense.  The House R’s, not so much.

In an opinion piece posted in the Washington Post last week, Kitzhaber illustrated why, when he was a governor in Oregon, he focused on health care reform, not just cuts.

Frankly, he sullied his reputation near the end of his term when he came under review for ethical failings by the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.  [And, for the record, I am a member of that Commission, so I will not comment further on that Commission’s work.]

To illustrate Kitzhaber’s health care policy chops, I’ll post excerpts from what he wrote for the Post under this headline – “Democrats should push for change in the system.  Oregon offers a model.”

From Kitzhaber:

“As negotiations continue on the budget bill Trump wants Congress to pass, Medicaid is squarely in the crosshairs.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicaid could lose up to $880 billion over the next 10 years, and that millions of low-income Americans would lose their health coverage.

“The Democrat Party has understandably reacted with outrage.  But its ‘no cuts or reforms to Medicaid, period’ mantra creates a false choice between cuts and defending the status quo.

“On one hand, any action that reduces funding for Medicaid, without also making structural changes to the program, will in fact cause millions to lose coverage.  That is unacceptable — and will increase costs in the long run for most Americans.  

“People without insurance tend to access care through hospital emergency rooms, where federal law requires they be seen and treated.  That uncompensated cost is reflected in higher premiums for those who have health insurance.”

Kitzhaber has maintained for years that just cutting Medicaid made no sense because it does nothing to ensure the long-term viability of a popular program that serves thousands of Americans.

More Kitzhaber:

“The party (the Ds) needs to come up with a better solution, which would both improve the program and save money.  We did it in Oregon.  Since 2012, my state has provided Medicaid through community-based coordinated care organizations (CCOs).  Faced with rising costs, inefficiencies in care delivery and inequities in outcomes, we looked for ways to focus on health rather than disease, and to reward techniques that worked.

“And, significantly, we changed the financial incentives.  CCOs operate on a budget indexed to a growth rate below medical inflation.  They are required to maintain enrollment and benefits, and also to meet metrics around quality, outcomes and patient satisfaction.  This realigns the incentives to focus on health rather than disease, by emphasizing prevention, primary care, and reducing waste and inefficiency.  We rebuilt our Medicaid system from the bottom up.”

Today, CCOs serve most of the Oregon’s 1.4 million Medicaid recipients, and between 2011 and 2021, operated within the per-member, per-year growth rate, met the required quality and outcome standards — and realized a net cumulative savings of approximately $3.7 billion.

Finally, Kitzhaber uses a metaphor to make his case for reforming Medicaid.

“Think of our medical system as a house, built decades ago,” he says, “and think of Americans as the family that has lived in that house for generations.  The way the house was designed made sense when it was built.  But over time, the family changed — and so did its needs.  The structure of the house, though, remained the same and it’s now too expensive for the family to maintain.  At some point, the house must be redesigned so that it meets the evolving needs of the family.”

So, Kitzhaber says, the basic structure of Medicaid — and the rest of our health-care system — was put in place some 60 years ago and hasn’t materially changed since then.

From his post in Oregon far away from the fray in Washington, D.C., he advocates useful reform ideas.

I hope they could gain traction, not as a magic answer, but as a notion that could change the “always cutting” characteristic of current Medicaid.

Meanwhile, the process in Congress turned raucous last week as folks came to protest against Medicaid cuts and some of them got hauled out of a House committee meeting for failing to be quiet. 

But the debate does indicate this salient point:  Individual lives will be affected under Medicaid, so this is more than just a debate over a budget.  It’s what behind the budget that counts. 

Just ask Dr. Kitzhaber.

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.

As a dedicated golfer, I like a story about golf as much as other followers of my favorite sport.

But, this week, Donald Trump used a stupid analogy to justify his idea to accept a huge gift from a corrupt Saudi government.

It was a 747 airplane worth north of $400 million that Trump wanted to use as Air Force One.

As for the analogy?  Trump compared taking the plane to taking a “gimme” in golf.

Yes, a gimme!

What is that anyway?

From the dictionary:  A short putt that a player is given, without putting, in informal play.

From me:  The word refers to the time when gentleman golfers “give” a short putt to an opponent as an act of generosity.  Just know that a gimme is not allowed under official golf rules in stroke play, so don’t expect or take a gimme in an official tournament.

In a gentlemanly game on a weekend, yes.

Note that, in the above, I choose to use the word “gentleman” because most women who play at my home club, Illahe Hills Golf and Country Club in Salem, Oregon, eschew gimmes; they say putt everthing in, which, of course, directly complies with golf rules.

Regarding Trump, he invoked the golfing great Sam Snead to justify a plan to accept the $400 million plane from Qatar to use as Air Force One.

Here is how national newspapers described the situation:

“This is the parable of the president and the putt.

“It was Monday morning in Washington and Trump was in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, signing one more executive order before departing for his expedition to the Middle East.  Over the weekend, news had broken about his plan to accept a $400 million plane from Qatar to use as Air Force One.  Questions abounded.

“This luxurious gift from the Qataris presented all sorts of concerns — ethical, legal, logistical, mechanical.  There was also the fact that Trump had once described Qatar as a ‘funder of terrorism at a very high level.’

Even some of Trump strongest supporters were concerned.  But, of course, Trump was having none of it.

“They’re giving us a free jet,” he said.  “I could say, ‘No, no, no, don’t give it us, I want to pay you a billion, or $400 million,’ or whatever it is.  Or, I could say, ‘Thank you very much.’”

“He paused.  Something had occurred to him.  The idea ofthe plane reminded him of something he had heard once and never forgotten.  It was just a little thing, really, and he said it almost as an aside.

“But it told so much about Trump and the way he sees the world.

“’There was an old golfer named Sam Snead,’ he said. ‘Did you ever hear of him?’

“Old Sam Snead ‘had a motto,’ Trump continued.  “When they give you a putt, you say, ‘Thank you very much.’  You pick up your ball, and you walk to the next hole.  A lot of people are stupid.  They say, ‘No, no, I insist on putting it.’  Then they putt it, they miss it, and their partner gets angry at them.”

Even for Trump, the analogy was a stretch as he compared a gimme in golf to accepting a luxury jet from a foreign government that no doubt wants many “somethings” from the United States.

Still, as simplistic as the analogy was, it was a revealing insight into how Trump views, not only the plane, but all the other ethical concerns swirling around him.

He doesn’t even know what the phrase “ethical conduct” means.  So, he doesn’t recognize one when one exists.

One of my good friends couldn’t believe that Trump would compare being given a huge jet to a gimme.

Neither can I.

Stupid?  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.

I borrowed this blog headline from one that appeared in the New York Times a few days ago.

It carried a solid piece by three writers contending that the United States, under Donald Trump, is already heading toward autocracy, if not already there.

So, first what is an “autocracy?”

The dictionary definition:  “Government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.”

To me, that sounds like Trump, or at least how he views himself, now just past 100 days of his second term as president.

A friend of mine and I talked about this issue the other day as we sat around on the 19^th hole to dissect the state of our golf games, plus the state of our country.

This friend and another of mine here in Salem, Oregon, have expressed themselves by joining protests over Trump’s actions, actions which have soiled this country as he seeks more and more power.

I applaud my friends, who, out of conscience, joined demonstrations against Trump.  It is better than sitting on the sidelines.

So, in the face of Trump’s autocracy, my wife and I have purposed to avoid going down Trump’s rat hole.  Instead, we intend to invest ourselves in community organizations that seek to make life better for the folks Trump hates – low-income citizens, immigrants, and real Christians…though, clearly, Trump has no idea what is means to be a real Christian.

Examples of the community organizations we support:

• Salem Free Clinics (started by our church here in Salem, Oregon)
• Salem for Refugees (also started by our church)
• Salem Area Young Life (which brings Christ to youths here in Salem)
• Salem Leadership Foundation (which brings groups together to solve community challenges)

Better to invest time, energy and money in these organizations than to keep worrying every moment about Trump.

In an essay in the New York Times by Steven Levitsky, Lucan Way and Daniel Ziblatt, the three authors dealt with autocracies, even as their credential is that they are political scientists who study how democracies come to an end.

I toyed with publishing excerpts of this essay, but in the end, decided to publish the entire piece because it can stand well on its own.  I know it’s long, but the ideas it contains are worth considering.

*********

How will Americans know when we have lost our democracy?

Authoritarianism is harder to recognize than it used to be.  Most 21st-century autocrats are elected.  Rather than violently suppress opposition like Castro or Pinochet, today’s autocrats convert public institutions into political weapons, using law enforcement, tax and regulatory agencies to punish opponents and bully the media and civil society onto the sidelines.

We call this competitive authoritarianism — a system in which parties compete in elections but the systematic abuse of an incumbent’s power tilts the playing field against the opposition.  It is how autocrats rule in contemporary Hungary, India, Serbia and Turkey and how Hugo Chávez ruled in Venezuela.

The descent into competitive authoritarianism doesn’t always set off alarms.  Because governments attack their rivals through nominally legal means like defamation suits, tax audits and politically targeted investigations, citizens are often slow to realize they are succumbing to authoritarian rule.  More than a decade into Chávez’s rule, most Venezuelans still believed they lived in a democracy.

How, then, can we tell whether America has crossed the line into authoritarianism?

We propose a simple metric:  The cost of opposing the government.

In democracies, citizens are not punished for peacefully opposing those in power.  They need not worry about publishing critical opinions, supporting opposition candidates or engaging in peaceful protest because they know they will not suffer retribution from the government.  In fact, the idea of legitimate opposition — that all citizens have a right to criticize, organize opposition to and seek to remove the government through elections — is a foundational principle of democracy.

Under authoritarianism, by contrast, opposition comes with a price.   Citizens and organizations that run afoul of the government become targets of a range of punitive measures:  Politicians may be investigated and prosecuted on baseless or petty charges, media outlets may be hit with frivolous defamation suits or adverse regulatory rulings, businesses may face tax audits or be denied critical contracts or licenses, universities and other civic institutions may lose essential funding or tax-exempt status, and journalists, activists and other critics may be harassed, threatened or physically attacked by government supporters.

When citizens must think twice about criticizing or opposing the government because they could credibly face government retribution, they no longer live in a full democracy.

By that measure, America has crossed the line into competitive authoritarianism.

The Trump administration’s weaponization of government agencies and flurry of punitive actions against critics has raised the cost of opposition for a wide range of Americans.

The Trump administration has taken (or credibly threatened) punitive action against a strikingly large number of individuals and organizations that it considers its opponents.  It has, for example, selectively deployed law enforcement agencies against critics.

Trump directed the Department of Justice to open investigations into Christopher Krebs (who as the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency publicly contradicted Trump’s false claims of election fraud in 2020) and Miles Taylor (who, when he was a Department of Homeland Security official, anonymously wrote an opinion piece criticizing the president in 2018).

The administration has also opened a criminal investigation into Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, who filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2022.

The administration has targeted major law firms for retribution.  It effectively prohibited the federal government from hiring Perkins Coie; Paul, Weiss; and other leading law firms it perceived as friendly to the Democratic Party.  It also threatened to cancel their clients’ government contracts and suspended their employees’ security clearances, preventing them from working on many cases related to the government.

Donors to the Democratic Party and other progressive causes also face political retribution.  In April, Trump directed the attorney general to investigate the fund-raising practices of ActBlue, the Democrat Party’s main donor platform, in an apparent effort to weaken his rivals’ fund-raising infrastructure.

Major Democratic donors now fear retribution in the form of tax and other investigations.  Some have hired additional legal counsel to prepare for tax audits, congressional investigations or lawsuits.  Others have moved assets abroad.

Like many autocratic governments, the Trump administration has targeted the media.  Trump has sued ABC News, CBS News, Meta, Simon & Schuster and TheDes Moines Register.  The lawsuits appear to have weak legal bases, but because media outlets like ABC and CBS are owned by conglomerates with other interests affected by federal government decisions, a prolonged legal battle against a sitting president could be costly.

At the same time, the administration has politicized the Federal Communications Commission and deployed it against independent media.

It opened an investigation of fund-raising practices by PBS and NPR, potentially as a prelude to funding cuts.  It also reinstated complaints against ABC, CBS and NBC for anti-Trump bias while opting not to reinstate a complaint against Fox News for promoting lies about the 2020 election.

Remarkably, these attacks against opponents and the media have occurred with even greater speed and force than equivalent actions taken by elected autocrats in Hungary, India, Turkey or Venezuela during their first years in office.

Trump has also followed other autocrats in assaulting universities.  The Department of Education opened investigations into at least 52 universities for their participation in diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and it has placed some 60 universities under investigation for antisemitism, threatening them with severe penalties.  The administration illegally suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in approved funding to leading schools such as Brown, Columbia, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania.

It has frozen $2.2 billion in government grants to Harvard, asked the I.R.S. to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status and threatened to revoke its eligibility to host foreign students.  As Jonathan Friedman, the managing director of free-expression programs at PEN America, put it, “It feels like any day, any university could step out of line in some way and then have all of their funding pulled.”

Finally, Republican politicians face threats of violence if they oppose Trump.  Fear of violence from his supporters reportedly dissuaded some Republican lawmakers from voting for his impeachment and conviction after the January 6, 2021, attack. Republican senators were also threatened during confirmation hearings in early 2025.

For many American citizens and organizations, then, the cost of opposition has risen markedly.  Although these costs are not as high as in dictatorships like Russia — where critics are routinely imprisoned, exiled or killed — America has, with stunning speed, descended into a world in which opponents of the government fear criminal investigations, lawsuits, tax audits and other punitive measures and even Republican politicians are, as one former Trump administration official put it, “scared” out of their minds “about death threats.”

This is not the first time that critics of the U.S. government have been harassed, threatened or punished:  Dissidents were targeted during the Red Scares of 1919 and ’20 and the McCarthy era, the F.B.I. harassed civil rights leaders and left-leaning activists for decades, and the Nixon administration attempted to use the I.R.S. and other agencies to attack his rivals.  These measures were clearly undemocratic, but they were more limited in scope than those occurring today. And Nixon’s efforts to politicize the government triggered his resignation, in part, and a set of reforms that helped curtail such abuse after 1974.

The half-century after Watergate was America’s most democratic.  Not only did the Trump presidency put an abrupt end to that era, but it is also the first — at least since the Adams administration’s persecution of the Jeffersonian Democrats in the 1790s — to systematically target both the mainstream partisan opposition and a broad sector of civil society.

The administration’s authoritarian offensive has had a clear impact.  It has changed how Americans behave, forcing them to think twice about engaging in what should be constitutionally protected opposition.  Consequently, many of the politicians and societal organizations that should serve as watchdogs and checks on the executive are silencing themselves or retreating to the sidelines.

There are troubling signs of media self-censorship. CBS’s parent company, Paramount, which is seeking the Trump administration’s approval for a merger with Skydance Media, recently established additional oversight over “60 Minutes” programming.  This move triggered the resignation of the program’s longtime executive producer, Bill Owens, who cited a loss of journalistic independence.

And crucially, Republican lawmakers have abdicated their role as checks on executive power.  As Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, put it, “We are all afraid.  It’s quite a statement.  But we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before.  And I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real.  And that’s not right.”

Americans are living under a new regime.  The question now is whether we will allow it to take root.

So far, American society’s response to this authoritarian offensive has been underwhelming — alarmingly so.  Civic leaders confront a difficult collective action problem.  A vast majority of American politicians, chief executives, law partners, newspaper editors and university presidents prefer to live in a democracy and want to end this abuse.  But as individuals confronting government threats, they have incentives to appease, rather than oppose, the Trump administration.

Civil society leaders seek to protect their organizations from government attacks:  Chief executives need to protect shareholders and future business opportunities, media owners must avoid costly defamation suits and adverse regulatory rulings, and university presidents seek to avoid devastating funding cuts.

For any individual leader, then, the price of defiance can often appear unbearably steep.  Although they acknowledge that everyone would be better off if someone took the lead and defied Trump, few are willing to pay the price themselves.  This logic has led some of America’s most influential figures, including politicians, billionaires, chief executives and university presidents, to stay on the sidelines, hoping that someone else steps forward.

Strategies of self-preservation have led too many civil society leaders to retreat into silence or acquiesce to authoritarian bullying. Small acts of acquiescence, framed as necessary defensive measures, feel like the only reasonable course.  But this is the fatal logic of appeasement:  The belief that quietly yielding in small, seemingly temporary ways will mitigate long-term harm.

It usually doesn’t.  And acts of individual self-preservation have serious collective costs. F or one, acquiescence will probably embolden the administration, encouraging it to intensify and broaden its attacks.  Autocrats rarely entrench themselves in power through force alone; they are enabled by the accommodation and inaction of those who might have resisted.  Appeasement, as Churchill warned, is like feeding a crocodile and hoping to be the last one eaten.

Individual acquiescence also weakens America’s overall democratic defenses.  Although the retreat of a single donor or law firm may not matter that much, collective retreat could leave opponents of the Trump administration without adequate funding or legal protection.  The cumulative effect on public opinion of every newspaper story not published, every speech or sermon not delivered and every news conference not held can be substantial. When the opposition plays dead, the government usually wins.

The acquiescence of our most prominent civic leaders sends a profoundly demoralizing message to society.  It tells Americans that democracy is not worth defending — or that resistance is futile. If America’s most privileged individuals and organizations are unwilling or unable to defend democracy, what are ordinary citizens supposed to do?

The costs of opposition are surmountable. And importantly, the descent into authoritarianism is reversible.  Pro-democracy forces have successfully resisted or reversed backsliding in recent years in Brazil, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea and elsewhere.

America’s courts remain independent and will almost certainly block some of the administration’s most abusive measures.  But judges — themselves targets of violent threats, government harassment and even arrest — cannot save democracy on their own.  Broader societal opposition is essential.

American civil society has the financial and organizational muscle to resist Trump’s authoritarian offensive.  It has several hundred billionaires; dozens of law firms that earn at least a billion dollars a year; more than 1,700 private universities and colleges; a vast infrastructure of churches, labor unions, private foundations and nonprofit organizations; and a well-organized and well-financed opposition party.

But civil society must act collectively.  Chief executives, law firms, universities, media outlets and Democrat politicians, as well as more traditional Republicans, have a common interest in preserving our constitutional democracy.  When organizations work together and commit to a collective defense of democratic principles, they share the costs of defiance.  The government cannot attack everyone all at once.  When the costs of defiance are shared, they become easier for individuals to bear.

So far, the most energetic opposition has come not from civic leaders but from everyday citizens, showing up at Congressional town hall meetings or participating in Hands Off rallies across the country.  Our leaders must follow their example.  A collective defense of democracy is most likely to succeed when prominent, well-funded individuals and organizations — those who are best able to absorb blows from the government — get in the game.

There are signs of an awakening.  Harvard has refused to acquiesce to administration demands that would undermine academic freedom, Microsoft dropped a law firm that settled with the administration and hired one that defied it, and a new law firm based in Washington, D.C., announced plans to represent those wrongfully targeted by the government.  When the most influential members of civil society fight back, it provides political cover for others.  It also galvanizes ordinary citizens to join the fight.

America’s slide into authoritarianism is reversible.  But no one has ever defeated autocracy from the sidelines.

**********

The last sentence is worth due and careful consideration as many of us fight Trump autocracy.

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 is known for lying about just about anything.  But, he also has been using another rationale lately to escape criticism about dumb stuff happening on his watch.

“I didn’t know about that,” Trump says.

Sure.

The Washington Post ran a column last weekend making this point in detail.  It was written by Aaron Blake and appeared under this headline: “The many big things Trump ‘didn’t know’ about.”

Here is more from the column:

“One of the major themes of Trump’s 2024 campaign was the idea that Joe Biden had no idea what was happening around him.

“Trump called then-President Biden a ‘vessel’ for others who were really running the country.  ‘He has no idea what’s going on,’ Trump said in early 2024.  He remarked in 2022 that Biden ‘has no idea what he’s doing, and he’s got no idea what he’s saying or where he is. Other than that, he’s doing a fantastic job.’”

But, the Post adds, “less than four months after taking over from Biden, it’s Trump who, in his own telling, is often unaware of major events surrounding him and directly involving his administration.

“At other times, Trump has distanced himself or appeared distant from his administration’s major and consequential decisions, as if he had little or nothing to do with them.”

The writer, Bump, provided a range of specific examples of Trump’s “I don’t know” defense:

• Most recently, Trump on Thursday suggested he had played virtually no role in the selection of his new pick for surgeon general, Casey Means.  “I don’t know her,” Trump said.  “I listened to the recommendation of Bobby” — i.e., Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”
• On Wednesday, Trump said he “didn’t know that” when asked about a key Republican senator coming out against his controversial nominee to be U.S. attorney for Washington , D.C., Ed Martin.
• On Sunday, Trump was asked about more than a dozen layoffs the previous Friday in a program that provides health care for 9/11 first responders and survivors.  “I’m not aware of anything that may have been brought up recently,” Trump said.
• Often, Trump says he is unfamiliar with major foreign policy and military stories taking place around him.  One of the most striking examples — given the stakes — has to do with four U.S. soldiers who died in a training exercise in Lithuania.  Trump paused briefly at the mention of “the soldiers in Lithuania” before saying he hadn’t been briefed on the situation.”
• The story was similar to one of the major controversies of Trump’s second term:  “Signalgate.”  The content of the Signal chat string, which the Atlantic later published, also raised eyebrows for how distant it made Trump appear from the deliberations over a foreign military strike. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vice President JD Vance said at one point, according to the report.
• Somewhat similarly, Reuters reported last week that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in late January ordered a halt to military aid shipments to Ukraine, despite Trump having issued no such order and reportedly being unaware of what Hegseth was doing.

Enough?  Perhaps.

But, add to this, all of Trump’s assurance that he doesn’t know anything about immigration and deportation controversies that are occurring at his specific order.

Finally, this conclusion from the writer, Blake:

“The ‘I don’t know defense’ is certainly a notable posture from the man who said his predecessor was hopelessly disengaged and repeatedly talked about how bad it was to have people who aren’t the president call the shots.”

After writing this blog, I will be heading to the golf course to get my head on straight after too much focus on the “I don’t know” president.